IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
JULIE CHRISTOFFERSON TITCHBOURNE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. A7704-05184
)
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, MISSION )
OF DAVIS, a non-profit California )
corporation, doing business in )
Oregon; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY )
OF CALIFORNIA, a California )
corporation, doing business in )
Oregon; and L. RON HUBBARD, )
)
Defendants. )
JBZCflJRPT.. i M Q m i M
Volume IX
Pages 4640 to 4835
Testimony of Gerald D. Armstrong
April 11, 1985
BILL ELLIS & ASSOCIATES
Court Reporters
1001 S.W. Fifth Ave.
Portland, Oregon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4640
(Court reconvened Thursday, April
11, 1985, beginning at the hour of
9:45 a.m.)
THE COURT: Good morning.
Okay, Mr. Armstrong.
(Witness resumed the witness stand.)
The last exhibit we were dealing with was
883. It was not received.
Bring the jury in, unless you have my matters
to discuss about this exhibit right now.
MR. COOLEY: No, I don't. I have to continue
laying the ground work for it.
THE COURT: Counsel?
MR. McMURRY: We don't have the questions.
It's hearsay. Your Honor.
MR. COOLEY: Hearsay?
MR. WADE: Your Honor, Mr. Armstrong has not
been able to determine what the question was. I
don't think there is —
THE COURT: Part of it has questions and
answers. There is one part that has an answer
without a question.
MR. WADE: Yes. We have no objection to Mr.
Armstrong reading the other parts.
MR. COOLEY: It's in his handwriting. I
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4641
don't see why a question is necessary.
THE COURT: Well, I would assume the question
is necessary so he knows what he is answering to and
he can answer your question.
MR. COOLEY: He wrote it, he can explain it
as best he can, it seems to me.
MR. WADE: The problem is, Your Honor, he
8 can't explain it because there is no question. With
9 respect to that part, we object to it. The question
10
was on a document prepared by the defendants and it
11
has not beei
i produced.
12
THE <
30URT: To the extent there are questions
13
and answers
there, he can answer. If we come up
14
with a question, then he can answer the part that
15
he's writtei
i the amswer to.
16
MR. (
300LEY: Your Honor, I don't see why I
17
can't have ]
aim read the matters that he wrote and
18
give him an
opportunity to explain it. That seems
19
to me is appropriate examination.
20
THE (
20URT: I thought I just explained that.
21
Because Counsel has told me he doesn't remember the
22
question he
was answering.
23
MR. (
300LEY: That's his testimony. He's
24
written it i
there, so what if he doesn't remember it.
25
I don't understand why that should be a relevant
2
3
4
5
6
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4642
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consideration at all.
THE COURT: I understand why and I don't see
MR. COOLEY: I understand your ruling. I
respectfully submit it's a unreasonable restriction
on cross-examination of a document prepared by this
witness in his hand in connection with meetings that
he was having with so-called Loyalists. The fact he
can't remember the specific question, I think if
Your Honor will read that and see what he has
written there as an answer, I think you will see
that it's self-explanatory.
THE COURT: Maybe I should ask Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong, what you have written there,
you know what — the question you are responding to
when you wrote an answer?
THE WITNESS: I know roughly what it was
about, but I don't know the specific questions.
There is some here that I have noted. I can explain
the whole thing, because it had to do with the
complaint, and this group gave me a number of
questions which arose out of the complaint, and this
is my response to that. You know, the whole thing
together probably — I don't know. Some of the
questions are noted and some I don't know. I could
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
not state, for example, what the first two or I
guess three were. Whatever they requested would be
a great deal of help.
MR. COOLEY: I don't have it.
THE COURT: Well it seems we have a problem.
MR. COOLEY: It seems to me that the general
knowledge that it was with respect to the complaint
is sufficient to have him testify as to what he put
down there.
MR. WADE: I will very shortly answer that.
It's a problem we have had in the past and we will
probably have in the future, that is evidently
certain documents are taken out of the files and
produced and then used at trial and documents
concerning those documents, and this would be
documents generated by the Church, are not produced.
And it's just extremely unfair for a witness to be
presented with part of the documentation and not the
entire documentation. I mean, certainly the Church
would have the questions that were given to Mr.
Armstrong. They retain copies of his answers. And
to think they would not retain copies of his
questions or if they destroyed those, they destroyed
those for a purpose, Your Honor.
4643
25
MR. COOLEY: You know, I'm getting a little
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4644
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tired of that kind of accusation, Your Honor. What
I tell you, it isn't there. It isn't there. Mr.
Wade persists in making these accusations and it is
ridiculous. These questions were given to this man.
Either orally or in writing. He prepared answers.
I don't have the questions any more than I have that
shreded document that's showed on here, and I
haven't seen it anywhere in the files.
THE COURT: To the extent that he can
knowledgeably state that he has written this in
answer to a question and can identify what the
question was, fine. If he cannot, then he cannot.
It's that simple.
Do you understand that, Mr. Armstrong?
THE WITNESS: I think so, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We will have to do it on a
question-by-question basis.
MR. COOLEY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Bring the jury in.
MR. COOLEY: Is the document admitted into
evidence. Your Honor?
THE COURT: Well, to the extent that it's
going to be answered, we might have to delete
portions of it, Mr. Cooley, is what I'm concerned
about now. You say admitted into evidence in
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
’Z%
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4645
entirety, the answer at this time is no. Part of it
may well be,
(Following proceedings held in the
presence of the jury.)
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. Exhibit 883, do you have that in front of you, Mr.
Armstrong?
A. Yes.
Q. That document was prepared by you in your own
handwriting for transmission to the so-called Loyalists, was
it not?
A. It was an answer which I gave, as best I could, to
questions which they put to me. And, yes.
Q. Now, do you remember when you prepared that document?
A. Well, the date on it is November 8, 1984; it appears
to be in my handwriting.
Q. You had met with Joey in Griffith park on November 7?
A. That's your date from the tapes. I do not recall the
date.
Q. Do you remember the day after you wrote that document
meeting with Joey again on the 9th in Griffith park?
A. Again, I do not have the chronology. I don't have
the reports. I have to accept your dates.
Q. In any event, that document, dated the 8th, you were
writing out your answers to questions. What's the first
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4646
1 question?
2 A. I do not have that question. I don't have the next
3 question. The questions are not here.
4 Q. Some of the them you wrote down questions; isn't that
5 correct, and then wrote answers?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. Can you look at the first item which you
8 purport to furnish an answer and tell me if you have any
9 memory of the subject matter you were being interrogated on?
10 A. The first question?
11 Q. Yes, sir.
12 A. It appears to be — they asked me when the lawsuit
13 should be filed. That is the lawsuit which they intended to
14 bring in order to exert their claim as being the organization
15 and to have a receiver appointed.
16 Q. Now, these questions came after you had furnished a
17 draft of a complaint prepared by Michael Flynn; is that
18 correct?
19 A. There is two drafts and I believe they had them both
20 by this date, but I cannot be certain.
21 Q. They had gone over them and Joey was telling you they
22 had certain questions with respect to the complaint; right?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. The very first question is when should it be filed;
25 right?
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4647
A. Well, I don't know if that was it or when is the
ideal timing? In any case it had to do with when.
Q. What was your answer to that question?
A. I stated that timing is ideal. A day the or a very
few days following any indictments.
Q. And at that time, you had been telling Joey that you
expected an indictment momentarily in Toronto; isn't that
right?
A. Well, both ways back and forth. Joey was relating to
me the organization's concern that they figured indictments
were coming down. He told me they had a plant, that the
organization had a plant in the office of the Ontario
Provincial Police and the organization was very concerned
about imminent indictments. So we had a flow of information
going in both directions.
Q. You told him about the role that you were playing up
there in Toronto, didn't you, the information you were
furnishing?
A. Well, the role I was playing in Toronto —
Q. The question is did you tell him about any role you
were playing in Toronto?
A. Well, I was not playing a role in Toronto and I can
explain that if you let me.
Q. First of all, let me ask you this. Did you go
Toronto and work with anybody up there in connection with that
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4648
1
matter?
2
A. No.
3
Q. Did you
furnish any affidavits or written statements
4
to anyone up there?
5
A. I can explain that.
6
Q. First, e
mswer if you will answer it, then explain it.
7
MR.
tfADE: Your Honor, can he be allowed to
8
explain the
question.
9
MR. (
ZOOLEY: The question is, did he furnish
10
any affidavits.
11
THE (
'OURT: Let's not get off to a bad start
12
this morninc
3 . Number one, let me hear the question
13
before I hear an objection. Then make your
14
objection and the basis for your objection, then I
15
will make a
ruling. Okay?
16
MR. (
COOLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
17
THE (
20URT: Before I hear argument on it.
18
MR. (
300LEY: The quizzes question is did he
19
furnish any
affidavits or written material to the
20
authorities
in Toronto.
21
THE (
^OURT: That's the question.
22
THE V
tfITNESS: Okay. Your Honor, and just so
23
my answer ii
i the negative, I don't want that to be
24
misinterpreted, so I want to be able to give what I
25
know ended up with the Ontario Provincial Police
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4649
If I could do that.
2 THE COURT: Mr. Armstrong, you are going to
3 be able to explain your answer. The question is,
4 did you give one or not?
5 THE WITNESS: They used one of mine. I
6 didn't give it to them.
7 THE COURT: Okay. That's an answer.
8 BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
9 Q. When you say "one of mine", you mean an affidavit?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Which affidavit did they use?
12 A. I did not see it, but my understanding is that they
13 used an affidavit authored by me which had to do with
14 Hubbard's control of the organization, and the fact that money
15 was funneled to Hubbard via a Liberian corporation called
16 Religious Research Foundation. Now, I don't know this for a
17 fact, but that's my understanding of what happened.
18 Q. Where did you get that understanding?
19 A. I don't know if it was from Michael Flynn or if I
20 learned about it from authorities in Florida. I'm just — I'm
21 not sure where exactly it came from. There was a press
22 statement, I believe, which contained this information. In
23 any case, it was an affidavit that was filed in — I believe
24 initially in Florida.
25 Q. In what case?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4650
1
A. Well, the cases I know of down there •— are Burden
2
and McLean, and 1
:hose are, I understand, the ones. Again, I
3
cannot be certaii
l at this time.
4
Q. Flynn is
3 the lawyer for those plaintiffs; correct?
5
A. He may 1
:>e associated in in some way. They were
6
represented by attorneys in Florida, for sure. A man by the
7
the name of Walt
Logan, I understand is the main attorney on
8
the case.
9
Q. Did you
give your affidavit to Logan or to Flynn?
10
A. I believe it went initially to Flynn.
11
Q. Now, what is the second question that you answered on
12
that list?
13
A. I can't
tell you.
14
Q. There i!
s no question appearing?
15
A. No.
16
Q. Can you
tell from the answer what they were dealing
17
with out of the <
complaint?
18
A. I think
that the whole rest of it dealt with an
issue, and it's <
a legal issue and I provided what I could,
20
always with the j
proviso of I'm not an attorney, I'm not giving
21
legal advice, here's my interpretation since you guys
22
apparently don't
have an attorney and you are depending upon
23
my small experti;
se. And it had to do with some allegations of
24
criminal activity
{ by the organization. I mentioned one of
25
those and that was the possible entrapment of a judge. Judge
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4651
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Krentzman in Florida, and the criminal setup of Michael Flynn
in Boston, in attempting to frame him in an attempt to cash a
check on L. Ron Hubbard's account. Those are the two
allegations of specific criminal activity which were mentioned
in the complaint.
Q. It was on that --
A. Both of those things were acknowledged by the — by
Joey, of the Loyalists. They wanted to know — their question
of me, and that's what most of this deals with is, can we be
certain that, first of all, a judge will — a court will free
the account? Because what they sought was to curtail the
pouring out of money to private investigators and attorneys
for illegal activities. Or if they could not come up with the
proof of these events, these instances, what then? And the
rest of it is my attempt to answer. My understanding — and
it would be the same today — is that regardless of criminal
activity, a complaint can be filed. You can simply say, "We
are the organization." And in that kind of a situation there
are instances where organizations, corporations, people within
corporations or churches, even, do disagree as to control of
the organization. They file a lawsuit to resolve that.
In this case, in that they claimed to have evidence
of expenditure of massive amounts of money for illegal
activities, it appeared as if a court could act, given that
information, from people who had the knowledge, a court could
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4652
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
simply act to curtail this kind of thing and freeze the
accounts until some responsible individual could be installed
to oversee the organization’s activities.
Now that's — you know, I'm not an attorney, but
that's — from what I could gather and what I transmitted into
these people, it was their show. I wasn't mine. I was
helping out.
Q. That is your understanding of what you were dealing
with in that second answer?
A. I think that I have written it here in various ways.
I could read this if you want.
Q. I would like you to do that, sir.
A. Okay. This is the way to get a Court to act with
urgency regarding accounts. The key is the affidavits on the
expenditures of funds and the transfer of funds to ASI, as the
complaint really makes clear. We knew of transfer of funds to
ASI. That came outside of Org. Homer Schomer testified about
massive amounts of money being transferred to a profit
corporation, that's one thing. They knew of it. These people
told me that they had account records which showed transfers
of funds where they ought not to have been transferred.
That's their information.
The transfer of funds and the illegal expenditures of
funds to the Pis and lawyers, all the crap they are involved
in, for example, an affidavit from John Nelson regarding the
G. ARMSTRONG
X
4653
1 Krentzman deal. The Krentzman deal was the judge in Florida.
2 John Nelson was a person who had in fact been the commanding
3 officer of the Commodor's Messenger Organization. He had
4 apparently — I never have spoken to him on the subject.
5 These people knew about it; a lot of people knew about it.
6 I'm pretty sure it was covered in the press in Florida.
7 Q. Are you aware of the fact, sir, and were you aware of
8 the fact in 1984, that that allegation concerning Judge
9 Krentzman had been fully investigated in Florida and that no
10 charges were brought against anyone?
11 A. I don't know that to date it's been fully
12 investigated.
13 Q. Do you know that it hasn't?
14 A. No, I don't.
15 Q. You don't know one way or the other, do you?
16 A. I was going on what these people were representing to
17 me. I was told at the outset that these people knew that
18 private investigators were paid a quarter of a million dollars
19 to charter a yacht, install a secret TV camera, and to film
20 individuals who were brought onboard by the private
21 investigators.
22 Q. You you told them that, sir?
23 A. I got that from them. I asked them about the whole
24 picture, because there was a further allegation of the use of
25 drugs and prostitution to set up Judge Krentzman. They said,
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4654
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"We don't have any information about drugs and prostitution.
We do know" — and what I have said — "about the yacht, about
the TV camera, about the quarter of a million, and about the
Pis."
Q. Do you recall saying to Joey, as it says on the tape,
"There were no prostitutes, there were no drugs, there was a
boat." Is that what you said to him in substance?
A. I possibly gave him their — I don't recall. Again,
you know, we could replay it and refresh everyone's memory,
but that's basically what I got from Joey at the outset. It
was one of the first things, that and the Flynn deal. That's
one of the techniques they used to entrap me was: We're going
on the knowledge that this is a setup of Flynn. We are
working to clear up Flynn's name. We think it's a setup by
the Pis. That's a pretty good way to get Armstrong, seeing as
he was friendly to Flynn — he was my attorney, and I wanted
to clear his name.
Q. Even to the extent of putting CSW in the file,
indicating that it was a setup of Flynn?
A. Not to the extent of covertly videotaping, recording
conversations and trying to set anyone up.
Q. Yes, but the CSW that you were talking about was
directed to the issue of Pis and hence to the issue of Flynn,
was it not?
A. That's your conjecture.
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4655
1
Q. I’m ask
Lng you what your view is of it.
2
A. I have
stated it many times what the subject of the
3
Pis was. This group said that they were scared to death of
4
the Pis. They had good reason to be. However, as it turns
5
out, they were ii
i bed with the Pis. They wanted to get rid of
6
the Pis. I said
, make it known. The fact is these Pis are
7
bleeding you. They are using Organization funds. They are
8
getting you no products and they are going to end up causing
9
you more trouble
. There's the Krentzman affair, there's the
10
Flynn affair, an<
3 now there's the Armstrong affair, there's
11
the Armstrong tapes — more trouble by absolutely unscrupulous
12
Pis, unscrupulou
s lawyers. They wanted that stuff to end, so
13
they said. I thought, good, it should end. And that's the
14
CSW.
15
Q. Do you i
<now whether there was or not a two million
16
dollar check forged.
17
MR.
tfADE: Objection, Your Honor. Irrelevant.
18
THE
COURT: Sustained.
19
BY MR. COOLEY:
(Continuing)
. 20
Q. Keep reading.
21
A. I say.
"An affidavit from John Nelson regarding the
22
Krentzman deal.
that would do it. I'll try to arrange, maybe
23
Zegal can."
24
Q. Who is
Zegal?
25
A
Zegal was a person outside the Organization. He was
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4656
1 a person who was — what the Organization called a squirrel.
2 He was trying to practice Scientology without being controlled
3 by the Organization. He had his own little group and he was
4 auditing people and giving them courses and that sort of
5 thing.
6 The Loyalists told me that they were in touch with
7 Zegal and that they had a communication line to Zegal. They
8 told me they had communication lines to various people on the
9 outside who could assist them. They knew about Zegal; Zegal
10 was in touch with Nelson. And it was either I could talk to
11 Nelson or they could go through Zegal. Anyway, that was —
Q. Please keep reading. Would you read the whole thing
through and go back and explain any portion of it you want to
explain.
A. Okay. It's easier if I explain as I go along so I'm
clear and I think the jury is clear.
17 Q. The problem I have with that — I have trouble
18 following what's documents and what's explanation. If we knew
19 the whole document first, and then you would back up, we would
20 be able to distinguish. If that meets with your approval of
21 course?
22 A. I am going to continue on the way I am. I think we
23 are getting it down fine.
24 "Q. Re actual crimes needed.
25 "A. Not so much crimes. I tried to convey
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4657
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the viewpoint of illegal expentitures or" ~
Q. Are you reading now or aren't you reading? That's
the trouble I'm having.
A. — quote, illegal expenditures, unquote —
I'm reading.
— "or use of the money of a supposedly
charitable organization they thought they were
joining for purposes of destruction and harassment."
This is the way they presented it to me. This is
almost their words. They wanted the harassment and
destruction to end. This was the come-on. The fact was, it
was on paper supposedly: "charitable organization." I don't
think you can have a that can harass and intimidate and
destroy the lives of individuals. It's a fascist organization
and it's a farce.
MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, this goes beyond the
scope of explanation. I respectfully submit he's
now telling about what he thinks.
THE COURT: I think that you will explain —
explain the answers as best you can. And I think
your attorneys will be asking you some questions.
I'm not trying to restrict your explanations in any
way, Mr. Armstrong. If you feel it necessary to •—
they are right there in front of you — to explain
even what you thought when you answered it. That's
G. ARMSTRONG
4658
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fine.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
"A. Tha t 1 s it."
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. What else?
A. "Let me make one thing very clear. You don't even
need to prove that. That's what gives the Court urgency to
move immediately."
"Urgency" and "immediately" are underlined.
"Across the country there are hundreds of cases, the
issue in which has solely been a fight for control of the
money."
And here this is what, again, — this group told me,
that's what they were seeking. Obviously, if they control the
money, then they are in a position to curtail the illegal
activity, to curtail the harassment. They talked of —
there's no reason why, as they called him, "little Hitler,"
David Miscavage should have control of a half a billion
dollars. They wanted it. And they, with that control, would
turn it into a "peaceful organization," to quote Joey from the
tape.
Q. And settle all the cases?
A. "Even where one party is not doing anything wrong
with it, they simply disagree over who should have control."
Answer to whatever question: "The Church
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4659
should not be being run by ASI. ASI should not be controlling
Church funds even aside from anything having been done wrong
with expenditures."
That is a critical consideration. ASI, Author
Services Incorporated — it's a supposedly profit corporation.
It's manned by Sea Org members. And even per the Loyalists,
they controlled Scientology. David Miscavage came into the
Organization, and from his position of Chairman of the Board
of ASI, exerted control over the Organization. And that is
simply not the way that — you can't have General Motors
running a church. It's not the way it works.
Q. Didn’t the Watchdog Committee control it before that,
and wasn't Miscavage on the Watchdog Committee?
A. The Watchdog Committee, as it turns out, are simply
a bunch of puppets. It's another echelon; the way Hubbard
worked it was to continually create more buffers, more groups.
At one point in the Organization, the Guardian's
Office was the power group, with Hubbard on top. Then he
established Bill Franks, ED International, over top the
Guardian's Office. Hubbard's still in control. Then during
this time there was WDC. WDC was parallel with the Guardian's
Office at one point, then was installed on top, but senior to
WDC was David Miscavage.
Q. The Watchdog Committee was David Miscavage, that is
25
what you just said?
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4660
1
A. David M
Lscavage was at one point on the Watchdog
2
Committee.
3
Q. How man]
? members were there of the Watchdog
4
Committee?
5
A. I can name probably nine.
6
Q. Was Terry Gamboa a member of the Watchdog Committee?
7
A. I don't
know if she was or not. She was not at one
8
point. And I doubt — while she was on the mission, which was
9
working directly
for David Miscavage, which is the mission
which became known by two names. It was Special Projects,
11
Special Unit, or
Mission All Clear. She was in charge of
12
that; she was th<
5 Mission in Charge under David Miscavage, who
13
was the Mission (
Dps, Mission Operator.
14
Q. Were yoi
l in the Organization when the GO was raided,
15
cleaned out by Miscavage and crowd, or do you say that never
16
happened?
17
MR.
tfADE: Objection, Your Honor. Irrelevant
18
and beyond
che scope of direction examination.
19
THE
10URT; Sustained.
THE V
WITNESS: I was answering an earlier
21
question which had —
22
BY MR. COOLEY;
[Continuing)
23
Q. Which questions were you answering?
24
A. I was describing the various echelons which were
established by Mr. Hubbard, and we were talking here about
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4661
going up to ASI. He was asking about Watchdog Committee and
2 wasn't it in fact true they ran the Organization. Not so.
3 They became puppets of ASI — ASI being run by David
4 Miscavage, Lyman Spurlock, Norman Starkey.
5 Q. When was ASI formed?
6 A. Approximately March 1982.
7 Q. Are you sure of that?
8 A. This is, again, testimony in my trial at this time by
9 Terri Gamboa.
10 Q. Before March of 1982, was it not the Watchdog
11 Committee that was running the show?
12 A. The Watchdog Committee, during that period of time,
13 ran organizational matters to some degree, but the real power
14 structure of Scientology is L. Ron Hubbard, brokers,
15 Miscavage, attorneys, Pis. That's where the power line is.
16 That's where the money is.
17 Watchdog Committee, they could issue evaluations on,
18 get a bunch of auditors into Org X or something to that
19 effect. But that’s not where the power lies. Watchdog
20 Committee became a nonentity. They became, again, another
21 ruse.
22 At one time it had some power. But no one in the
23 organization underneath Hubbard has any power, Hubbard
24 controls. And if Hubbard happens to be dead, then someone
25 acting for him is still controlling as if they were him. The
G. ARMSTRONG
X
4662
1
only one who eve]
: had any power in the organization was L. Ron
2
Hubbard. He could remove his own wife who was under him, who
3
did that to the <
>rganization.
4
Q. Who did
that? who physically did that, sir?
5
MR. V
<?ADE: Objection, Your Honor; beyond the
6
scope of direct. It's the same objection I had
7
before.
8
MR. (
300LEY: He gives explanations and I'm
9
not allowed
to ask any questions on them according
10
to Mr. Wade,
11
THE (
HOURT: Go ahead ahead, Mr. Cooley.
12
BY MR. COOLEY:
^Continuing)
13
Q. Who removed Mary Sue Hubbard? Who went and did it,
14
do you know?
15
A. David Miscavage.
16
Q. And she
was then the Controller of the GO, wasn't
17
she?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. What was
; Mr. Miscavage's position at that time?
20
A. He was v
forking on the ■— He was in charge, underneath
21
Hubbard, of the J
.egal projects, Mission All Clear, purpose of
22
which was to get
Hubbard out of all the legal entanglements
23
which he had gotten himself into.
24
Q. He was £
member of the CMO and he was a member of the
25
Watchdog Committee at that time, was he not?
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4663
A. Correct.
2 Q. And with respect to the GO, you, yourself, had
3 attempted to become a member of the GO, had you not?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. You had applied for a posting to the GO when, sir?
6 MR. WADE: Objection, Your Honor. This has
7 been asked and answered in prior testimony. We went
8 over this the first day of cross-examination.
9 THE COURT: Yes, we have, Mr. Cooley.
10 MR. COOLEY: All right. Just so I can
11 refresh my —
12 BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
13 Q. Was it in the Intelligence Division you wanted to
14 work?
15 A. Again, we went over all that, but I did not state in
16 any application where. I stated that I had done intelligence
17 work. I had worked in close communication with Brian Rubinek;
18 he was the Assistant Guardian for Intelligence on the ship; he
19 had earlier been the Assistant Guardian for Intelligence in
20 Washington, D.C. So it was presumed that I would likely go
21 into that area.
22 Q. Going back to Exhibit 883, is it fair to say that the
23 issues that were fundamentally being addressed by you dealt
24 with what kind of allegations would have to be made in a
25 complaint to induce a Court to act promptly before a
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4664
1
full-scale trial
on the merits to appoint a receiver for the
2
assets and money
of the Church of Scientology?
3
A. Well, what I'm saying here is, first of all, you
4
don't even —
5
Q. Can you
answer that question first before you
6
explain, sir?
7
A. I'm answering that —
8
Q. Can you
answer it yes or no?
9
A. No. It'
s a misstatement.
10
Q. All right. Now, let me ask, then, if that's a
11
misstatement, another question.
12
MR. W
ADE: Your Honor, he said he can't
13
answer it yes or no. He has a right to answer the
14
question.
15
MR. C
OOLEY: All right. Let him answer it.
16
I object to
this procedure, but let him answer it.
17
THE C
:0URT: Go ahead, Mr. Armstrong.
18
THE W
ITNESS: Thank you. Your Honor.
19
What
I was saying and what this is all about
20
is, "You don
't need the crimes. You can" — They
21
wanted to take a stand. "You don't need these
22
things. However, you don't need them in order to
23
bring this t
hing into court and say that we are the
24
organization
and to make an issue of it. If you
25
have the evidence of these illegal activities, which
G. ARMSTRONG
X
4665
1 you claim, then you can get the Court probably to
2 act with some urgency."
3 BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
4 Q. If you have what?
5 A. "If you have the evidence that you — If you have the
6 evidence of these things which you claim."
7 Q. The urgency aspect, though, is getting the Court to
8 appoint somebody to take over as a receiver or custodian of
9 the Church's property and money while the litigation is being
10 pursued; isn't that a fair statement?
A. That's what they wanted to do, yes.
Q. They believed, apparently, or were saying to you they
believed they had to have evidence of crimes to induce a Court
to do that, to act on that urgency basis; is that a fair
statement?
A. Again, this comes from them —
Q. I understand that.
A. — information provided by them. And that's my
understanding. I have said that they don't need the crimes.
However, given what you have got, you say you have got, and
they were concerned about whether or not the organization —
they did not want the organization bled of all its assets,
which they stated was happening.
Q. And that's what you are addressing when you say, "Let
me make one thing very clear. You don't even need to prove
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4666
that. That's what gives the Court urgency" — you underline
2 the word "urgency" — "you move immediately." You underline
3 the word "immediately". "Across the country there are
4 hundreds of cases, the issue in which has solely been a fight
5 for control of the money, even where one party is not doing
6 anything wrong with it. They simply disagree over who should
7 have control."
8 A. Those are my words.
9 Q. Those are your words indicating to the Loyalists that
10 they don't need the kind of solid evidence of crime that they
were talking about; that they can get a Court to take over the
assets of the Church on much more slender allegations, isn't
that so, sir?
A. Again, you know — undoubtedly you are misstating
this whole thing, because they are there — they wanted to do
it, their idea, they claimed to have these things. Then they
asked about them again and I gave them what my opinion was.
Q. Now, was your opinion based upon any conversation
with Michael Flynn giving you any legal advice and telling you
about all these cases that there are across the country that
permit this to be done?
MR. WADE: Your Honor, we would object on the
grounds that this line of across-examination has
gone far enough in this area.
THE COURT: The last question, if you are
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4667
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
making an objection to it, is sustained.
MR. COOLEY: I’m not allowed to inquire on
that, Your Honor?
THE COURT: That was my ruling.
MR. COOLEY: Note my exception.
THE COURT: You don't have to note it, you
have an automatic exception, Mr. Cooley, in this
state.
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. Now, sir, how many times did you meet with Mike in
Griffith Park?
A. Mike Rinder?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Two.
Q. Do you remember the dates? Do you remember
discussing with him the subject matter that we've just been
talking about, namely, the nature of the allegations that
would be sufficient to warrant a takeover of the Church's
assets pursuant to a court order?
A. I don't remember the exact words, but I would have
told them the same thing that I have been saying here. They
are their allegations. They claimed at the outset to be
working toward proving the Flynn setup.
Q. Did you at some point become quite exasperated with
him in your discussions in Griffith Park?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4668
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WADE: Your Honor, we object on the
grounds of the cumulativeness of the testimony. The
Court has a right to confine cross-examination or
examination when it's a needless waste of time. We
think it's reached that and point and we object to
this line of questioning.
THE COURT: If this is for bias, you still
have to lay a proper foundation.
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. Do you remember being in Griffith Park with Mike ■— I
keep forgetting his last name. Would you give it to me again,
sir?
A. Rinder.
Q. — Mike Rinder on November 19, 1984, and on November
30, 1984?
A. Those are your dates and I assume that you are
getting it off reports which have not been produced.
Q. And do you remember discussing with him the subject
matter of what allegations would be sufficient to support a
takeover of the Church's property.
MR. WADE: Your Honor, we would object on the
same grounds we objected to prior.
THE COURT: Still not a proper foundation.
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. Was Mike Rinder one of the so-called Loyalists?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4669
1
A. There are no Loyalists.
2
Q. One thal
: you understood to be a member of that group
3
at that time?
4
A. I was taken to him initially by Joey.
5
Q. All right. And did you meet alone with him in
6
Griffith Park in
November of 1984?
7
A. I probably felt at the time that I was alone;
8
however, I'm certain I wasn't.
9
Q. Well, where did you meet in Griffith Park?
10
A. I can't
describe it. Griffith Park is a big park. I
11
was taken there t
>y Joey.
12
Q. Did Joe}
r stay there with you?
13
A. No.
14
Q. Did he ]
Leave you and Mike sitting on a bench,
15
somewhere?
16
A. He left
me sitting on a bench.
17
Q. And did
Mike join you?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. And did
you then proceed to have a conversation with
20
him?
21
A. Yes, I c
lid.
22
Q. And how
long did it take place on the first occasion?
23
A. I can't
tell you.
24
Q. I beg your pardon?
25
A
I can't tell you
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4670
1 Q. Do you have any memory whatsoever?
2 A. Not as specific as a hundred and eight minutes.
3 Q. Did you discuss with him the subject matter of your
4 ongoing relationship with the Loyalists and in particular the
5 complaint that had been drafted by Mr. Flynn or the
6 complaints?
7 A. He brought the complaint with him. He had — You
8 know, the whole thing, every question was clearly designed to
9 get me to state something. The only reason we don't have a
10 video tape here is because I didn't say anything. And he
11 probably did.
12 Q. Do you remember discussing the nature of the
13 allegations necessary to support a takeover of the Church
14 pursuant to court order?
15 A. If there was a discussion, I would have reiterated
16 whatever I had here. We discussed a lot of things. He wanted
17 to know my viewpoint on a lot of things. He said, "We
18 appreciate your viewpoint. You have an exterior viewpoint."
19 He wanted to know my opinion on Scientology. He wanted to
20 know my opinion on a lot of things. I gave him whatever I
21 could, truthfully, at the time.
22 Q. Do you remember telling him that it wasn't necessary
23 to have to be able to prove the allegation, it was sufficient
24 to be able toit?
25 A. What I would have said, and I think that this is a
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4671
pretty accurate statement, I was absolutely clear that "I am
not in a position to give you guys legal advice. I can't do
that. But in that you say you can't get out of the
organization, you say you are terrorized by the organization,
you say you can't go at this time to an attorney, so you have
come to me for help. I'll help you as I can."
But I always couched whatever I was saying in that
vein. "I simply am not an attorney. I can't represent you.
And someone will make the case that in actual fact that we're
antagonists. I don't feel that way toward you, because here I
am helping you out. But my attorneys can't represent you.
But if — if you are willing to take stand" — and that's
always what it was based on — "if you guys are willing to
take a stand, and you say you want to get rid of the
tyrannical nature of this organization, I'll do what I can.
It's going to take a lot of guts. And to take a stand, you
don't even need to absolutely prove this thing to the nth
degree because it's a civil matter."
You are talking about crimes. They had been saying
they wanted to get the crimes on these people, on David
Miscavage, as they called him Little Hitler. They said that
they had been working on it for some time. They said they had
been in existence for two years. And I gave them — You know,
it probably became heated, at least the second meeting,
probably became heated because this guy was asking me
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4672
questions which <
>bviously I was not giving him the right
answer to. I was
s not being sucked into saying whatever he
wanted to catch e
md put on video. And he was being stubborn
and he was being
stupid and I thought, "Well, damn it, you
know we are running into some kind of an ego problem here."
And that's — yoi
i know, the next — you know, the day after
the meeting, I received a telephone call from Joey and he said
something like, '
'We don't need your services any longer. Talk
is cheap." Something like that. I guess that's all I had
given them. The
trap hadn't worked. I was — I was broken up
by it.
Q. Were yoi
i broken up at that second meeting by the fact
that he was appearing to you to be very stupid and not getting
your message that
: it wasn't necessary to have provable
allegations, but
merely necessary to make allegations to
induce a court tc
> act on an emergency basis and take over the
Church?
MR. V
JADE: Objection.
THE C
'OURT: Just a second, Mr. Armstrong.
Sustained.
MR. p
JADE: I move to strike.
THE (
30URT: It will be stricken.
MR. (
COOLEY: May I consult with the Court for
one moment,
please?
THE C
X)URT: Send the jury out, please.
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4673
1
(Jury was excused. Following
2
proceedings held out of the presence
3
of the jury.)
4
MR.
300LEY: May the witness be excused,
5
please, Youj
r Honor.
6
(Witness was excused.)
7
MR.
300LEY: Your Honor, the question put to
8
the witness
goes directly to the issue of bias. It
9
goes directly to the question that he has been
10
testifying
:o here; namely, that he was trying to
11
persuade these people that they didn’t have to have
12
any substance to them, if they could just make
13
allegations
that would impart to a court a sense of
14
urgency, it
mattered not whether they were provable,
15
whether the]
f had merit or substance to them, that
16
could induc<
2 a court to appoint a receiver to take
17
over the Church; the goal being put these people in
18
control of
the purse strings, settle out the cases
19
and their quid pro quo, then supposedly be a future
20
management
3f the Church. I cannot imagine a more
21
probative issue of bias for this jury. And the
22
Court has sustained an objection to it, which I
23
consider to
be an unreasonable restraint upon my
24
right of cross-examination --
25
THE COURT: You better read the bias section
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4674
1
of the code
again.
2
MR. (
:00LEY: I have read it very carefully.
3
Your Honor.
4
THE C
30URT: And you better read 607 again.
5
MR. (
300LEY: Well, if Your Honor is placing a
6
ruling, that
:'s a criptic comment. If it's based
7
upon that, t
:hen I think the Court ought to impart to
8
Counsel the
basis for the ruling, because in my
9
judgment it
s entirely appropriate under 609.1. If
10
another rul<
i is being utilized by the Court to cut
11
off my cross
3-examination, I ask —
12
THE (
:OURT: I will tell you, Mr. Cooley, I'm
13
going to uss
; every rule that I think is right under
14
the code. 3
fou are going to have to get it in under
15
a rule that
s right under the code.
16
MR. (
300LEY: I am using Rule 609.1. I have
17
laid the proper foundation under that rule which
18
requires that all I do —
19
THE (
X)URT: Did you make this statement?
20
MR. (
:00LEY: That's right.
21
THE C
:0URT; Okay.
22
MR. C
:00LEY: And you have sustained an
23
objection.
25
THE COURT: All right.
MR. COOLEY: To the question as to whether
G. ARMSTRONG - X-
4675
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
that is not what he did say to this witness ■— I
mean to this fellow Mike.
THE COURT: Yes. Now there are limitations
on the amount of discretion I may impose. I have
full discretion as to how far you can go with bias
questions.
MR. COOLEY: If the Court is exercising its
discretion to cut that off, then I should know that.
But if the Court is saying I haven't laid a proper
foundation, I think that's wholly incorrect.
THE COURT: I didn't say that to this last
one. I said it to the other ones.
MR. COOLEY: I think the allusion to Rule 607
has nothing to do with this cross-examination
either.
THE COURT: Yes, it does, because we are
still dealing with questionable — well, this last
one wasn't taped, so I probably shouldn't say that.
This is a different meeting. That's another tape.
I was going to quote you a section from the code,
but it's not pertinent to this question.
MR. COOLEY: Well, I have made my argument.
I do not understand the basis of the Court's ruling
and I really —
THE COURT: Well, I thought I made this all
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4676
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
■— I was trying to yesterday afternoon in chambers,
we were going to go so far with this line of
questioning. Now, there has been three or four
different approaches to show your point already on
this, Mr. Cooley. I think the jury perfectly
understands what your theory is.
MR. COOLEY: Well, the evidence — the
meeting with Michael, is the exasperation on this
witness' part is that people weren't moving fast
enough to get this complaint filed to take over the
assets of this Church. And he was trying to
persuade them they didn't need anything that rose to
the level of provable facts, just enough to stampede
a judge into taking over the Church. If that isn't
evidence of bias, I don't know what is.
MR. WADE: Your Honor, with respect to that,
there is another — when one is cross-examining and
to attempt to show bias, the question is asked, in
this case the question has already been asked to Mr.
Armstrong. He explained his answer when he
testified to and then we get another question from
the defense counsel stating the way he wants to
state it, "Isn't it true you said this for this
reason?" And, of course, Mr. Armstrong is going to
25
say no
But it gives him a chance to restate it
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4677
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
That’s another reason why this line is falling
apart.
The second thing is — the second thing is,
that when that second answer is asked, the — it is
an improper question and it is then badgering or
argumentative to the witness after it has been
answered.
The third point is, that we have gone as far
as we could possibly go to show bias. At some point
the Court just has to make an end or we are going to
be here for days and days and days. I think this
has went along — we have had the tapes which were
shown and the tapes were supposed to show bias. We
went through various different documents Mr.
Armstrong wrote as part of this operation to show
his bias, and now we are going back to the same
things. In fact, in Exhibit 883, what we are
talking about, Mr. Armstrong is talking about the
urgency. He’s explained about the receivership,
he’s explained all of that.
THE COURT: I heard it.
MR. WADE: And now we are going into it
again.
MR. COOLEY: Incidentally, I offer Exhibit
883 into evidence. It's been testified to in full
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4678
1
2
3
4
q
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
now.
THE COURT: 883 will be received.
MR. COOLEY: Thank you.
I simply say that the impediment placed on
cross-examination on the issue of bias is the most
serious impediment that can be placed r in my
judgment, on cross-examination, and under the right
of confrontation of a witness against you, the right
to cross-examination is the most sacred right —
THE COURT: Providing it's true bias. I'm
beginning to question this line of questioning. You
say clearly it shows bias. Maybe I'm dense, Mr.
Cooley, but when he's giving an opinion as to his
urgency in response to a question being given to him
by someone else whom is not here to testify as to
what the question is —
MR. COOLEY: Not yet.
THE COURT: Not yet. What you can do on bias
is lay the foundation, "Did you make this
statement?" The witness then says yes or no.
Period. That's as far as the code allows.
MR. COOLEY: But the Court didn't let him
answer the question.
THE COURT: Because I'm curious about the
bias situation. Number one, it is cumulative. We
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4679
have heard z
ill this.
MR. C
:00LEY: We didn't hear that question
before. Anc
I on the explanation Mr. Wade talked
about, he never answered the question.
THE (
20URT: I know. I'm directing this to
you, not Mr,
Wade.
MR. (
COOLEY: All right. What is it you would
like me to z
inswer, Your Honor?
THE (
;OURT: He is giving an opinion as to an
urgency of J
riling a lawsuit. How is that —
MR. (
COOLEY: That isn't it at all. That
isn't what i
argency means at all in that context. He
even admitted that. The urgency is to draft — to
have a complaint that has in it allegations which
impart to the Court a sense of urgency which the
Court then
ceases upon as a matter that has to be
acted upon z
ind appointments a receiver for the
assets of the Church. That's what it's all about.
To get the j
Present — the Church, my client. Church
of Scientology of California, to get that taken over
by somebody
other than its current management, for
the purposes
3 of giving the so-called Loyalists
control to s
settle up the litigation and then march
along with -
—
THE C
ZOURT: I must be hearing the questions
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
46 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and answers differently than anybody else. I hear
him saying this was a nonexistent group out to get
— there were no Loyalists.
MR. COOLEY: He didn't know that at the time.
THE COURT: Of course he didn't know that at
the time.
MR. COOLEY: So it's his state of mind we are
dealing with here, Your Honor. Nothing else.
THE COURT: But when you plant a question
into somebody's mind to illicit a certain response,
is it in fact that person's state of mind or just a
response to that question?
MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, what you are doing
now is really — we have played the tapes for the
jury.
THE COURT: I think we should stopped with
the tapes, frankly.
MR. COOLEY; It's up to the jury to decide
whether that was implanted in his mind or whether —
I'm now dealing with two completely different
meetings with a different person. In which the
subject matter of these complaints is pursued. If
the Court does not feel that a showing on the part
of this — a showing of a state of mind on the part
of this witness, "For goodness sake, get the
G. ARMSTRONG - X
46 81
1
complaint filed. It doesn't matter if you can prove
2
it or not.
tfe can take over the assets of the
3
Church no matter if we make allegations that are
4
serious enough and we will worry about proving them
5
later." Thai
t's the point that seems to me is so
6
crucial to show on the part of this witness.
7
THE COURT: What you are getting into is a
8
situation foi
: the appointment of a receiver. You
9
know as well
as I do, Mr. Cooley, how that's done.
10
What we are ;
planting in front of this jury --
11
frankly, he
Is not too far off. You get issues in
12
front of a court saying, "Here we have a problem.
13
Two opposing
factions regarding assets of a
14
corporation.
1
15
MR. COOLEY: That's right.
16
THE COURT: It is urgent before they are
17
dissipated,
Defore they are wasted, whether
18
whatever. That's the allegation you make to get a
19
receiver appointed.
20
MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, —
21
THE COURT: Then it becomes a court matter.
22
MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, let me just say this
23
to you —
24
THE COURT: I can't zero in on the bias as
25
aspect of it
G. ARMSTRONG - X
46 82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COOLEY: Well, when we put together a
total package here, and I believe we have a package
here which the jury may reasonably infer the
following: that you have got a step-by-step process
where the first thing you do is you plant some
evidence in the defendant's files. Some evidence
that is incriminating against them. Then you hurry
up and you make some outlandish allegatoins, whether
you can prove them or whether you can't, that
stampedes a judge into putting somebody in there to
to take over this Church and take over its assets.
Then when you get to the discovery, you go
along and you find these incriminating documents in
the file and say, "Aha, you see, we told you all
along." Now, present management has no idea how
they got there. That they were manufactured and
planted. And we are going to bring them down that
way.
It seems to me I have a pretty strong issue
of bias when I'm able to establish facts that create
those kinds of inferences for a jury. And if the
Court doesn't see it, there is nothing more I can do
about it.
THE COURT: I think you have got some issues
of conduct, certainly, but I'm not as clear as you
G. ARMSTRONG - X
46 83
are that that's bias as defined in the code, Mr.
Cooley.
Now, I think you can do this. I think you
can ask him, you have laid the foundation of where,
when, time, who. Have you got — you must have
something you are reading from there. "Did you make
this statement?" The witness then says, "Yes, I
made it." If he says, "Yes, I made it," that's the
end of it. If he says, "No, I didn't make it," then
if you want to produce evidence to the contrary,
that's up to you. That's what the code provides.
MR. COOLEY: All right. I'll do it that way,
Your Honor.
MR. WADE: Your Honor, with respect to that,
it even seems at some point, and I thought maybe we
had reached that point now or soon will, that this
entire line of questioning has to end. The
questions with respect to what — we have seen the
videotapes of what he told Joey. Now we are get to
a line of questions of two meetings with Mike
Render. Two meetings held at the same park during
the same time period when Mr. Ingram still had his
approval from Mr. Rodriguez.
THE COURT: Now I'll give you a lecture, Mr.
Wade. I don't know why you objecting to it. I
G. ARMSTRONG - X
46 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think Mr. Armstrong is handling those questions
pretty well.
MR. WADE: It's just the time. Your Honor.
The accumulation, how long — if this is going to
last another day, another two days,
THE COURT: My understanding was we were
trying — he was going to try to complete it by
another day.
MR. COOLEY: Judge, I have never in all my
life been confronted with a cross-examination where
these explanations go on and on and on and are never
subject to being cut off. But that's the — I am
informed that's the rule in Oregon and t the rule we
are playing by here. But it's those speeches that
are taking the time. Every question takes forever.
If he would answer the question — The only time,
you know, that he really answers the questions and
doesn't make speeches is when I start getting very
specific with him about a meeting at that time and a
place. Then he doesn't really know what I've got.
And he's worried about that so he gets very
circumspect. But boy when he's rolling, he could go
on forever. I'm not making the delay. It's those
answers that I submit are unresponsive to the
question. And are under the guise of explanation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4685
are merely allowing him to do what would normally be
done on redirect examination in any proceedings I
have ever been in.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COOLEY: He puts in hearsay, he puts in
the most outrageous allegations. I try to cut him
off and the Court never allows me to do it. I don't
know where — what I can do to shorten this
examination. And I tell you. Your Honor, I'm going
to take as long as it takes.
THE COURT: Nobody put you on a time schedule
tham I'm aware of, Mr. Cooley.
MR. COOLEY: Okay.
THE COURT: Isn't that a fact?
MR. COOLEY: Nobody has put me on a time
schedule. But, you know, I don't want to be pressed
into one now, because this is a very —
THE COURT: Do you feel you are being
pressed?
MR. COOLEY: Will, when we started talking
about you thought we were going to finish this up,
because I am not going to finish this up. I have
got an awful lot to do with this witness and if the
Court will hold him on a tighter tether, we will get
along better. That's all I'm saying.
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4686
THE (
;ODRT: Well, I said yesterday afternoon
and I am going to watch this fairly closely the rest
of this day,
we are not here to build a case for
whatever cases are going on around the country.
I'll address
3 this to the gentlemen in the audience.
I'm trying t
:he Christofferson case.
MR. (
COOLEY: Two days we gave him discovery
in the California case.
THE C
:OURT: Well, I don't know where the
lawyers present are from or what cases and I don't
really care,
That's their job. It's that we are
trying the ]
issues in this case, as I see them, and
I'm going t<
5 try to limit it to that.
MR. (
ZOOLEY: Yes, sir.
THE
X)URT: We'll take a few minutes.
(Court recessed at 10:57 a.m. and
reconvened at 11:17 a.m.)
MR. (
COOLEY: Before we bring in the jury.
Your Honor,
you remember, I told the Court I would
continue my
examination. I told the Court I was
continuing t
:o check on whether there were additional
tapes, and ]
[ am now informed there are tapes of
meetings with Mike Rinder on November 19 and
November 30
1984. I have no intention of using
them, but I
want to inform the Court that they do
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
exist.
MR. McMURRY: We would like them produced
forthwith.
MR. COOLEY: I object to that.
THE COURT: Well, I asked the other day for
all tapes, videotapes, and so forth, to be produced
regarding the Armstrong Operation.
MR. COOLEY: I understood the tapes were for
the Court, not counsel. I was not required to
produce, in the midst of my cross-examination, the
tapes of the —
THE COURT: Now, how did we find this
information?
MR. COOLEY: I have had Mr. Peterson check on
the situation with the lawyer in Toronto,
THE
COURT: Mr. Peterson, where are the
tapes?
mr. :
PETERSON: They are in Toronto.
MR. i
COOLEY: I'll have them sent here.
THE i
COURT: Okay. Get them here.
MR.
COOLEY: I’ll be happy to present them to
the Court.
But the point is, the other tapes did
not get turned over to Counsel until the Court
determined J
they were going into evidence.
THE i
COURT: And these are tapes of what?
46 87
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4688
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR.COOLEY: The Rinder meetings of November.
THE COURT: We are not going to have any
testimony about this meeting until I hear those
tapes.
MR. COOLEY: I don't understand that ruling
at all,
THE COURT: Well, just take it as a ruling.
I was told that there were nonexistent tapes. Now
we are getting —
MR. COOLEY: No, I didn't say that about the
Rinder meeting. I said there were no tapes —
THE COURT: No, wait a minute, Mr. Cooley.
Just a second. Let me talk now. I asked about
tapes regarding anything to do with the Armstrong
Operation.
MR. COOLEY: I told the Court I was still
checking the Toronto situation.
THE COURT: I'm not blaming you, Mr. Cooley.
MR. COOLEY: I had determined there was no
tape of the hotel meeting, there was no tape of the
lawyer's meeting; that I had not completed my
investigation of the existence of tapes, any other
tapes with respect to Toronto. And I have now
determined that there are tapes of the meeting with
Rinder on November 19 and 30, and I'm telling the
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4689
1
Court that.
I'm not concealing anything.
2
MR. H
IcMDRRY: May I be heard, Your Honor?
3
THE C
:OURT: Absolutely.
4
MR. V.
ICMDRRY: This Court on Monday —
5
THE C
:OURT: And don't get angry.
6
MR. N
ICMURRY: I'm not. I certainly wouldn't
7
want to do t
:hat.
8
This
Court, on Friday and again on Monday,
9
ordered all
writings, all reports, all wires, all
10
recordings c
>f any kind from any source, including
11
the Toronto
lawyer, Ingram, and anybody else, were
12
to be furnished to this Court by Monday morning.
13
And there was colloquy: "That's a big order, but
14
we'll do it.
It
15
Now i
lere we are on Thursday and low and
16
behold Peterson finds — not Mr. Gutfeld, but
17
Peterson —
finds, yes, there's a Toronto tape.
18
Now, he didr
I't find it on Friday, Saturday, Sunday,
19
Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday. He finds it on
20
Thursday. £
Jow, I also suggest that the
21
cross-examination that pinpoints the 19th and 30th
22
of November
must be in the form of some report, must
23
be in the form of some memorandum.
24
THE C
X)URT: Is this the meetings of —
25
MR. MCMURRY: — of good old Rinder meetings —
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MCMURRY: — which have been referred to
by Mr. Cooley as occurring on the 19th and 30th.
There must be some evidence, unless the Toronto
lawyer is in court and can shed some light on this
sudden information, as to date, time and place.
There must be some evidence that, low and behold,
Mr. Peterson might be able to enlighten us on. The
contents and the times are clearly within the
knowledge now of Mr. Cooley, and we can only suppose
that source of information is Mr. Peterson,
specially admitted as an officer of this court.
We would suggest, Your Honor, that the
cross-examination on this setup be terminated. It's
obvious that the Court's orders are not being
complied with until it suits the purpose of the
defendant, Church of Scientology of California, and
that obviously evidence is being used from this
setup to harass and intimidate this witness, and
it's an ongoing operation to this very day, to this
very last hour.
MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, you may recall in
Mr. Gutfeld's testimony he said, "That is not within
my ability," at which time I announced to the Court
4690
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
46 91
1
2
3
4
5
6
THE COURT: I'm not blaming Mr. Gutfeld.
MR. COOLEY: Let me please finish. I stood
up and I said, "I'm handling that aspect. I am
continuing the investigation; I have not completed
it yet. I will report to the Court when I do."
I have now reported to the Court. There is
no concealment of any tapes here. Now, with respect
to —
THE COURT: Do you want to know what bothers
me?
MR. COOLEY: What, sir?
THE COURT: When I had Mr. Peterson stand up,
and I said, "Are there any more tapes or documents
or anything with reference" —
Don't shake your head at me, Mr. Peterson.
Just get up here because you and I are going to have
a little talk.
MR. PETERSON: Good.
THE COURT: And you said you didn't have any.
MR. PETERSON: That's correct.
THE COURT: You didn't tell me they were in
existence somewhere else.
MR. PETERSON: At that time, when I said it,
I did not know. We have been trying to track down
the tapes. We have been trying to track down, you
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
46S2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
know, the Toronto attorney and his investigator.
The investigator has been out of the state on some
sort of investigation. When we get out of court
here, it's 5:00, 5:30 by the time we get back to the
apartment, and it's late at night in Toronto. We
have been unable to locate Mr. Ruby.
At the time I represented to the Court that I
had nothing, I had nothing. And I still don’t have
tapes. And I have no documentation regarding the
Toronto tapes. As I had said, it was done by the
Toronto attorney and a private investigator, not me,
not the Church. Mr. Gutfeld was telling the truth
when he didn’t even know of the existence of this
taping, because it was not done through the Church
and no one was told about it. That’s why we don’t
have it.
THE COURT: Mr. Cooley somehow has information
about it.
MR. COOLEY: I had information about the
meetings that took place and I have access to
Michael Rinder, Your Honor.
MR. PETERSON: Right.
MR. COOLEY: I assume the Court will give me
some credit for doing some attorney work product
25
here
G. ARMSTRONG - X
46 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: No question about that.
MR. PETERSON: I believe the Court ordered we
get the five boxes, and they are sitting over there.
We have always endeavored to comply with the Court's
orders.
THE COURT: I sometimes feel that I am being
used in this case, that I have been tolerant, I have
listened to representations by all Counsel, I have
accepted those. And then something comes along
different. It never is anyone's fault, and it's
never anyone's responsibility. But somebody has to
be responsible. Somebody has to be responsible for
seeing that when a Court orders something, it's
done.
MR. PETERSON: When we started preparing the
case, we had no idea of the scope of the testimony;
for example, Mr. Armstrong, or any other witnesses.
That's why we didn't have tapes down here, we didn't
have all the stuff here and available. Discovery
has been ongoing since the beginning of trial, as
evidenced by those boxes. Those are our entire
files for the cross-examination of this witness
sitting over there. I mean, it hasn't helped us.
25
these discovery orders, and we are doing our best to
comply with the orders. As Mr. Cooley said, we had
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4694
no plans of playing the tape. We had enough trouble
2 with this tape. Two more tapes would be — it just
3 wasn't in the plans. That's why the stuff isn't
4 here, because we had no idea it would be needed.
5 MR. WADE: Your Honor, I share the Court's
6 concern and I realize Mr. McMurry and I are getting
7 a little indignant. I mean, Mr, Peterson stood here
8 the other day, and certainly maybe he didn't say,
9 "The tapes don't exist anywhere and I don't know
10
about them,"
but he certainly inferred there were no
11
tapes. None
whatsoever. And that's all we have
12
heard is those tapes were not in existence.
13
Mr. Gutfeld testified from the stand: nobody
14
knows about
those tapes. Mr. Armstrong testified
15
about it, about people saying the tapes didn't
16
exist. That
's what they said; they said the tapes
17
didn't exist
. I remember that statement: "They
18
don't exist.
" And now they do exist. Now they want
19
to cross-examine on the subject when they have
20
tapes.
21
The f
irst thing, they can't cross-examine in
22
that area until we get the tapes. The Court ordered
23
the tapes be
produced; they should be produced. And
24
it is incredible to say, as Mr. Peterson has just
25
said, "We didn't think we needed those. We didn't
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
think we needed to use those. You used the two
tapes. You saw the problems we had with the two
tapes. We didn't think we would need these other
tapes."
Somebody in the Church certainly knew those
tapes existed. And just because they didn't want to
use them or they didn't want the testimony from
those tapes, that's why they weren't here. That's
why they weren't produced. It just doesn't make any
sense. This cat-and-mouse game doesn't make any
sense at all. An attorney or witness stands up and
says things don't exist, the tapes don't exist, the
program orders don't exist, nothing exists, and then
later on we find out they do exist. And I don't
think it's anything less than misrepresentation.
MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, I stepped forward
at the last hearing. I wasn't on the stand. I
volunteered that Mr. Wade or Mr. McMurry or the
Court could ask me any questions regarding any
documents or any tapes or anything. These two
gentlemen had no questions, and I said, "Your Honor,
I personally have no documents." They were talking
about documents at the time. I had no knowledge
regarding those tapes until Mr. Cooley asked me,
4695
25
because he couldn't get in touch with the Toronto
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4696
lawyer, if I would help him get in touch with the
Toronto lawyer because he was in trial all day. And
there's been —
MR. COOLEY: Nonexistence, Your Honor. You
may recall you asked me about whether there were
tapes of the hotel meeting. I said there were no
tapes that I knew about.
THE COURT: I tried to be as thorough in
asking that question as I possibly could, because I
don't know of all the meetings. That's why I made
it as broad as I did.
MR. COOLEY: I specifically told the Court
that I was still investigating the Toronto aspect of
it to see whether there were any further
conversations, tapes. I had satisfied myself that
nowhere was there a tape of the meeting in the hotel
room or a meeting in the lawyer's office. I then
said that I knew that Mr. Rinder had met on two
occasions with the witness.
As a matter of fact, the first time I had met
Rinder in any detail was when the witness spoke
about it. I wasn't familiar with the fact that they
also had met at Griffith Park. I learned that; I
spoke with Rinder; I had Mr. Peterson chase it down,
and I now know there are two tapes. I don't intend
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
46 97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to play them. Although from what I understand from
Mr. Rinder, there is plenty of good stuff on there
for me. The reason I don't want to play it is that
it has taken us a week to deal with the first two
tapes, and that is enough time. Now I will present
them to the Court and let the Court view them, and I
will —
The COURT: Are these videotapes again?
MR. COOLEY: Yes.
THE COURT: Done under the same circumstances
as the last?
MR. COOLEY: As I understand, under the same
circumstances and the same investigator.
MR. WADE: Your Honor, it's very strange to
me that Mr. Cooley is able to obtain information
that he says will show there are no tapes for the
meeting in the hotel.
Now, if this was the lawyer in Toronto, why
didn't he find out during that same conversation of
the other tapes?
MR. COOLEY: The reason: I did not talk to
the lawyer in Toronto. The thing was dealt with
piecemeal. When the Court asked me — not the
Court, but when I was asked by Mr. Armstrong, he
said, "Well, you undoubtedly" — or he said to the
G. ARMSTRONG - X
46S8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
jury, "You undoubtedly have tapes. I went to the
hotel room, I went to the lawyer, and you
undoubtedly have tapes."
Well, I didn't know at that time I had tapes.
THE COURT: Your argument even going into
this cross-examination regarding these meetings was
you, just got through telling me, on the basis of
bias. Now we are back to the original point we were
with the other tapes.
MR. COOLEY: That was bias.
THE COURT: And I said at that time they have
got to be coughed up so they can be at least heard
by me first and then by Counsel to see whether or
not, number one, they are, they do show bias; and
secondly, whether they were in their proper context.
MR. COOLEY: That came in the context of me
offering the tapes. I'm not offering them now.
THE COURT: But they are here and we know
they exist. And I see no reason why Counsel on the
other side shouldn't know what's on those tapes.
MR. COOLEY: That's the first time the Court
has made that ruling.
THE COURT: Because I think in this context I
have been misled.
MR. COOLEY: I am very sorry, Your Honor,
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4699
because I did not deliberately mislead the Court.
I'm sorry I pursued the matter, frankly.
THE COURT: Did you hear me say
"deliberately"? I didn't say deliberately, Mr.
Cooley. I didn't say deliberately. If I would have
said deliberately, I also would have been calling
for a sheriff.
MR. COOLEY: Well, then, I don't know how I
misled the Court.
THE COURT: Because you and Mr. Peterson have
said, "That it," at least led me to believe there
are no — I asked, "Are there any more audio tapes?"
I remember my conversation. "Are there any other
video tapes? Are there any audio tapes of this
Armstrong Project that we are dealing with here?"
And I was led to believe by all the answers that
there were none.
MR. COOLEY: I think if Your Honor reviews
the transcript, you will see that is not the way it
happened. I specifically left open the Toronto
situation on anything dealing with —
THE COURT: When can they get here?
MR. COOLEY: When I go back for lunch, I'll
check on their location. I understand I could have
them here no later than tomorrow morning.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. McMDRRY: Mr. Peterson is apparently the
person that made the contact with Mr. Ruby in
Toronto; certainly he should be able to give us the
answer to that question, whether they are here or in
Portland.
MR, PETERSON: Your Honor, it is just a
matter of flight schedules. They can be put on a
plane. I'm confident there are enough flights
coming into Portland that they can be here by
tomorrow. If not 9:30, by at least noon.
THE COURT: Well, they are going to have to
get here.
MR. COOLEY: They will get here, Your Honor,
and I will give them to the Court tomorrow.
THE COURT: They are going to be here
immediately as soon as you can get them on the
airplane and get them down here.
MR, COOLEY: We will deal with that when Mr.
Peterson and I go back for lunch.
MR. McMURRY: The Court also ordered every
other writing. The Court said, "This is
inconceivable to me that there isn't a paper trail."
THE COURT: That's what I said.
MR. McMURRY: Precisely. And the only thing
that was excepted from your order was the writings,
G. ARMSTRONG
X
4701
the handwritings of Gerald Armstrong. Now, —
THE COURT: That was my order, Mr. McMurry.
MR* COOLEY: This is what I have been dealing
with for two days.
MR. McMURRY: I submit that just from the
beginning of this second attack through the Rinder
meeting, and the specific language that is being
used, that there is writings, and that they do
exist, and that they are here in Portland and that
they should be produced.
MR. COOLEY: That is not so. My information
has come directly from Rinder and there are not
writings to be produced and I'm not going to give
him my work product under any circumstances.
THE COURT: Do I have to go through the
litany again of what should be produced? I thought
everybody by now should certainly understand it.
MR. COOLEY: There is no problem. Your Honor.
These tapes, as I understand it, the last of the
material to be produced.
THE COURT: I meant writings, documents,
notes.
MR. COOLEY: I understand that.
THE COURT: Chalkboard material. Anything.
MR. COOLEY: I can tell you at this time I'm
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4702
1
not going tc
) have transcripts made of those tapes.
2
I'm deliberately going to avoid that. There would
3
be no documents.
4
THE C
lODRT: Anything at all regarding the
5
Armstrong Project, as it's been called here, has got
6
to be coughed up.
7
MR. C
COOLEY: Everything is on that table or
8
on the way
from Toronto, I understand it, and that's
9
it.
10
MR. I
3 ETERSON: Is that supposed to be stuff
11
that dealt v
/ith the Armstrong taping incidents?
12
None of that
: stuff has anything to do with —
13
THE (
ZOORT: No. I understand Mr. Gutfeld
14
saying that
doesn't have anything to do with the
15
taping incident. Three boxes are claimed
16
attorney/client privilege, two boxes may be
17
discoverable
i matters or may or may not be. I
18
haven't the
looked at them.
19
Now,
—
20
MR.
IcMURRY: Would you please put the
21
question to
Mr. Peterson item by item, writings,
22
handwritings
3, notes, reports, debriefing, project
23
orders. Just item by item to Mr. Peterson, please.
24
THE C
30URT: Would you give me a — I don't
25
know that terminology you are talking about
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4703
MR. PETERSON: I don't either.
MR. McMURRY: I hand the Court what I just
dashed off. I hope it will be clear enough for Mr.
Peterson.
TEE COURT: Okay. Mr. Peterson. We are
referring now to all documents, writings,
memorandums,! briefings, debriefings, evaluations,
program orders, reports, all tape recordings, or
electronic recordings, mechanical recordings, wire
taps. Well, the third one I'm a little bit bothered
by Mr. McMurry. I think that's not a matter for
this Court. I think it is a matter for a court.
MR. McMURRY: What other Court can make
inquiry at this stage, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I think a California court is
going to have to make an inquiry on this because I
have no way of determining the authentication of
police documents. We are back to that illegally
seized evidence problem again.
MR. McMURRY: As the Court remembers, the
Ingram exhibit, which is 876, had a date between
November 7 and 14. The Rinder meetings, as we
understand it now, occurred on the 19 and 30, if my
notes are correct. So there must have been yet
another authorization from Mr. Rodriguez or someone
G. ARMSTRONG
X
4704
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like him.
THE COURT: Because I didn't put much
credence in that, if you remember correctly.
MR. McMURRY: That's correct. Your Honor.
But if there is the tape, as they now admit, the
videotape, then --
THE COURT: Then Mr. Cooley would argue they
had authority.
MR. MCMURRY: That's right. And —
THE COURT: Okay. Give me —
MR. PETERSON: If the Court didn't put any
credence in it, whether the —
THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, did I ask for
argument?
MR. PETERSON: Well, usually the procedure
has been each side got to answer a question.
THE COURT: I didn't ask you a question. I'm
only telling you what to come up with.
MR. PETERSON: what to look for.
THE COURT: And come up with.
MR. PETERSON: If it exists.
Your Honor, I have not seen any of this stuff
and I don't want the Court to take the opinion that
because Mr. McMurry writes it down, that it exists
somewhere.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4705
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: I now know there our videotapes,
I just found out a few moments ago of another
meeting in Griffith park. Now, if there is such a
meeting and if it was videotaped, in order for it to
have any smattering of legality, there had to be
some authorization by some governmental agency to
issue it, as I read the California Penal Code and
Mr. Cooley explained it to me.
MR. PETERSON: That's part of it. There are
two grounds that you can have a legally recorded
conversation in California. One is police
authorization, and there is another exception, too.
But again, — there probably is a letter in
existence.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PETERSON: We have one, I'm sure there
were two obtained. I don't know.
THE COURT: Let's have that.
MR. PETERSON: I will make inquiry.
THE COURT: Now, here you say — and I'm sure
what you are referring to, Mr. McMurry, orders,
Executive Directives, and amended orders or
directives. What are we referring to? I want to
25
make this very specific so there is no further
misunderstanding as to discovery matters.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4706
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. McMURRY: Yes, Your Honor. I make it
generic because I don't know what org it might be
issued from. So I don't refer to just RPF, RRF,
ASI, Sea Org, OSA, all of these little acronyms for
their various intelligence operations. I want all
orders, all program orders, directing the
undertaking of anything.
THE COURT: Relating to Mr. Armstrong?
MR. PETERSON: That's a little broad.
MR. McMURRY: Relating to Mr. Armstrong and
it goes on. It goes on.
THE COURT: Relating to Mr. Armstrong, his
wife Joycelyn.
MR. McMURRY: Correct.
THE COURT: Mike Flynn.
MR. McMURRY: You recall in Exhibit 876, the
Rodreguez also included Mike Flynn and others. I
want to have all orders, all programs, all reports,
whether they relate to Michael Flynn, Joycelyn, A
Armstrong, myself, plaintiff, anybody involved in
this litigation as a witness or as a party or as a
lawyer.
MR. COOLEY: I object to anything going
beyond Armstrong and his wife. I have no problem
with Armstrong and his wife. We are not going to
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
get involved in a wide sweeping discovery rematch
now involving Michael Flynn.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Mr. Cooley, as I
understood the thrust of a lof of your questions of
Mr. Armstrong, they dealt with Mike Flynn.
MR. COOLEY: That's right. Your Honor, if we
get into a discovery match now on the issue of
Michael Flynn, this case is never going to get
started again. It's one thing to have it with
respect to the witness, it's quite another with
respect to Michael Flynn.
THE COURT: I can settle that. Then we don't
ask any questions about Michael Flynn.
MR. COOLEY: I cannot believe what is
happening here. I cannot believe it.
THE COURT: You want it all on your side.
MR. COOLEY: That isn't so at all, Your
Honor. That is simply not so. I have never been
confronted with more stringent restrictions placed
on cross-examination.
THE COURT: And I have never been confronted
with evidence turning up on a daily basis that has
been ordered by the Court on many occasions.
MR. COOLEY: Well, I am prepared to rest on
25
the record as it stands and I have daily copy
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4708
I
>
i
l
[
I
I
!
f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: You are not the only one that
that has daily copy, Mr. Cooley.
MR. COOLEY: I will show you the daily copy.
Your Honor is really accusing me of something that
is really unjust.
THE COURT: I told you when start accusing
you, Mr. Cooley, that I will have a sheriff down
here to accompany —
MR. COOLEY: That will be fine. Then I would
defend myself in an appropriate form. I have been
threatened in this case with all manner of things.
I have had restrictions placed on cross-examination,
Mr. McMurry is allowed to attack opposing Counsel at
will. The Court allows these witnesses who are
attacking the Church to absolutely say anything they
want on the witness stand. And then discovery gets
conducted in the middle of my cross-examination, and
now Mr. McMurry has the nerve to ask, in the middle
of this cross-examination, that everything in the
Church's files with respect to Michael Flynn be
produced, and the Court says if I don't do it, I'm
not going to be allowed to ask questions on it.
That, Your Honor, is absolutely improper in my
25
opinion, requesting things like that.
THE COURT: One more time you raise your
G. ARMSTRONG
X -
4709
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
voice to me, Mr. Cooley — Let this record indicate
right now, this is the second warning I have given
Mr. Cooley in two days regarding his attitude toward
this Court. I am now prepared to take under
advisement a matter of sanctions against Mr. Cooley.
MR. COOLEY: I object to the attitude that
the Court manifests toward me. I think it's unfair,
I think it manifests bias, and I think it manifests
prejudice.
THE COURT: Fine. You may think whatever you
will. I'm stating that for the record right now,
Mr. Cooley. You'd better — number one, you take
things the Court says out of context, you twist
them around and state them in a manner which is not
what the Court says. Nobody has yet ordered Michael
Flynn documents to be produced. Nobody has ordered
you to do anything, yet. Instead of that, you
conduct this harangue against the Court, which is
highly inappropriate, which is not done by any
lawyer that I'm aware of in the state of Oregon nor
do I know any Court which will accept it.
Now, I don't understand the breath of Mike
Flynn or Mr. McMurry documents.
MR. McMURRY: Yes, Your Honor. If the Court
would look at Exhibit 876, a so-called authorization
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
issued by Philip Rodriguez unto Mr. Eugene Ingram,
the Court will note that the authorization allowing
illegal wire taping and eavesdropping included —
THE COURT: Incidentally, I might say
something else. And I don't — I don't know whether
it's going on or not, but everybody should be aware
that there is to be no recording done in the
courtroom with the exception of Court recordings. I
failed to make that announcement earlier and I hope
everybody understands that.
I don't know whether it is, I'm just making
announcement that says under our court rules, it is
not done. Okay.
MR. McMURRY: The Court will note on Exhibit
876 that the so-called authorization included the
wiretapping or eavesdropping of Mr. Gerald Armstrong
and attorney Michael J. Flynn and others for
possible violation or attempts to violate certain
laws and any other law. Now, I think with the
revelations that keep coming out, that we should
determine — Mr. Flynn's name has been utilized time
and again by defense counsel as if — and he has
stated in open court, a criminal conspiracy exists
somehow, and I have challenged him to exculpate that
4710
25
off the record as to whether he would include myself
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4711
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or my law firm. I want to know what additional
wiretapping, eavesdropping or recording occurred
with Michael Flynn, and I would like to know what
recording has occurred, if any, with me. And I
would like it put to Mr. Peterson, who professes to
be Counsel for the Church of Scientology, who
apparently has more access to documents than Mr.
Gutfeld or Mr. Cooley. I would like those questions
put.
THE COURT: The proposition as to Michael
Flynn I could almost answer myself. The problem
with that is, they could be so voluminous as far as
orders and directives and so forth that — and I'm
only guessing —
MR. McMURRY: I'm speaking of the wiretaps.
Your Honor, and transcripts.
THE COURT: Strictly wire taps?
MR. McMURRY: That's right. Because that's
how his name comes up in the context of Exhibit 876.
THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, do you understand
his question?
MR. PETERSON: Yes. Is this started? I
thought we were talking with reference to the
Rodriguez letter and the Toronto — you know, taping
project, whatever it was, of Mr. Armstrong. That's
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4712
the context that I viewing this in.
THE COURT: Yes, that's where we are. That's
where we started. We started with that. He points
out that this authorization, by officer Rodriguez,
which I have noted before is not even on official
stationary, says that this authorization shall
specifically pertain to the investigation of Gerry
Armstrong, Michael J. Flynn and others not known at
this time.
And I guess your question, Mr. McMurry, is
you want to know what else came within the purview
of this alleged authorization.
MR. McMURRY; Precisely. Now, that's on
point three, the on that I referred to. With
respect to Armstrong and his wife, we want every
report.
THE COURT: Mr. Peterson understands that.
MR. McMURRY: With respect to the
eavesdropping and transcripts of any form, I don't
care whether it's mechanical, electronic, video,
wire, whatever method this guy Ingram uses, we want
it.
MR. PETERSON: On who?
MR. McMURRY: On me, on Mr. Wade, on Julie
Christofferson Titchbourne, on Mike Flynn, and on
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4713
Gerry Armstrong and his wife Joscelyn.
THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, can you shed any
information for me on this?
MR. PETERSON: You mean whether they exist?
Well, like I have — on several occasions stated,
this so-called Armstrong project was not commenced
the by the Church, but —
THE COURT: I understand by Toronto.
MR. PETERSON: — and a private investigator,
Mr. Ingram.
THE COURT: I understand.
MR. PETERSON: I will make inquiries to see
if any of these things exist as to the people Mr.
McMurry has enumerated or listed out for me.
Frankly, I don't think so, but I will make the
proper —
THE COURT: Will you report back to me on
that as quickly as possible.
MR, PETERSON: I can check on that when we
make the arrangements to get the two tapT: That
would be satisfactory. And give me the information.
I'm not ruling on any of that. I have only ruled so
far on Armstrong and his wife, Joscelyn. Do you
understand that?
. PETERSON: Oh, yeah.
25
MR
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4714
2
3
4
5
6
THE COURT: That, you understand?
MR. PETERSON: Clearly.
THE COURT: I’m withholding Flynn, McMurry,
and et al, yet until you give me some information.
MR. PETERSON: That's fine.
THE COURT: Do you understand that? I hate
to keep saying, "Do you understand that," with every
every question, but I think I'm getting into that
area where I've get to on the record "do you
understand what I'm saying."
MR. PETERSON: And I want the Court and
everyone that I understand and I'm going to do my
best to comply, as I have always done.
Now the other stuff. Your Honor, I think we
have complied with all that in the previous
discovery and this ongoing discovery. As I listen
to the things, I would like a copy of that list that
— you know, I think we have complied, but again —
THE COURT: You mean Mr. McMurry's list?
MR. PETERSON: All these EDs and aprogram
orders and all that other stuff. And that I'm not
so sure I understand. Maybe if I could —
THE COURT: Well, let's get an understanding
before we recess.
MR. PETERSON: His last paragraph relating to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4715
Gerry Armstrong, that's fine, his wife, Joscelyn,
although her name hasn't been mentioned in this
case, I don't think. But Mike Flynn, all these
other people, all these policies and orders? It
would be probably another hundred thousand —
THE COURT: No, no, no. I think I can
clarify that. I thought you understood that. That
only refers to this authorization for video taping
and taping. Those other items do not refer to all
those people.
MR. PETERSON: Executive directives, amended
orders, directives —
THE COURT: Those are for Mr. Armstrong.
MR. PETERSON: I see.
THE COURT: Now, do you understand?
MR. PETERSON: Now, it appears to be clear.
THE COURT: Okay, We will recess for lunch
until 1:30.
Mr, Runstein, I think I have to talk to you.
(Court recessed at 11:58 a.m., and
reconvened at 1:33 p.m.)
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
MR. COOLEY: Good afternoon. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Peterson was going to give me
a quick rundown, I think.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4716
MR. COOLEY: I know Mr, Peterson made the
call and the man was in court. The secretary said
he had left for court.
THE COURT: Maybe he is still working on that
problem.
Now, before we hear from Mr. Peterson — and
I'm hesitant about the cross-examination regarding
the park incident — do you have another area you
can proceed to until Mr. Peterson reports back?
MR. COOLEY: Yes, I can.
THE COURT: Very good.
Mr. Armstrong, would you come up to the
stand, please.
(Witness resumed the witness stand.)
THE COURT: I have taken under consideration
those matters I have discussed this morning. I’m
not going to take any sanctions against Mr. Cooley.
Mr. Cooley, are you paying attention?
At this time I’m not taking any sanctions
against Mr. Cooley. Mr. Cooley's actions were not
deliberate, I am convinced. And whatever comments
he made toward the Court, I feel, were in the heat
of his representation of his client.
MR. COOLEY: It's a long, tough case. Your
Honor.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4717
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE CODRT: Do I take that to mean you agree?
MR. COOLEY: Yes f Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's get the jury.
Wait. Here's Mr. Peterson.
THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, any news for me?
MR. PETERSON: I put a call in to Toronto.
The attorney was not in his office. He was expected
back at the end of the day. And I said I would call
back, and left my name and number. But I'm still
confident that I can get in touch with him either
later this afternoon or this evening and the tapes
will be here. I don't foresee a problem.
THE COURT: Okay. And you are working on the
other aspects?
MR. PETERSON: As soon as I can get through
to him, I can ask about the other items.
THE COURT: Including all the questions we
had. Some were relative to Mr. Armstrong; some were
relative to other videotapes which may or may not be
in existence.
MR. PETERSON: Right.
THE COURT: Communication, okay? We
understand each other?
MR. PETERSON: We understand each other.
THE COURT: Okay.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4718
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Get the jury.
(Following proceedings held in the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: Mr. Cooley.
BY MR. COOLEY; (Continuing)
Q. Mr. Armstrong, when you met with Rena, did you give
her a copy of a manuscript of yours?
A. I didn't give her a copy. I gave her the original of
— it was not a manuscript in the sense of the document which
was stolen from me was a manuscript, that it was more linear
than the random assortment of papers which I let Rena look at.
She, at that time, said she wanted to see them because she was
in the publishing business, and I showed her some of these
documents and — they are not really documents. A majority of
them were simply drawings. There were some writing amongst
it, but they are not what I would call a manuscript.
Q. And did she retain it after you left the meeting?
A. She kept it overnight. At least I think it was
overnight. And I believe I got them back from Joey either the
next day or — he said he didn't look at them, but —
THE COURT: Excuse me just a moment, Mr.
Armstrong. I have a call from Salem, Chief Justice.
(Discussion had off the record.)
MR. COOLEY; Would you please read back that
last part, so Mr. Armstrong can finish his last
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4719
1
answer.
2
(The court reporter read back the last
3
answer.)
4
THE
WITNESS: — but knowing that Joey has
5
lied to me <
>n virtually every other subject, I
6
assume that
he did. I gave them to her as she
7
represented
that she was a prospective publisher.
8
She was interested in my art work, my writings.
9
BY MR. COOLEY:
'Continuing)
10
Q. Going back to when you left Scientology on December
11
12, 1981, or thereabouts, did you on that occasion take any
12
documents with you from the Organization?
13
A. The onli
r documents I took are what I delivered to
14
Omar Garrison.
[ have already answered that question. The
15
subject has been
litigated and there is a decision by the
16
Court in Los Angeles, and I think that that Court — that
17
decision completely explains the facts and the ruling in that
18
case. I think that to discuss it now is — beyond that, an
19
outrage. I woulc
1 ask that decision — I'll read the whole
20
thing if you want
That lays out the facts, everything that
21
happened.
22
Q. I'm mers
sly asking you when you left on December 12,
23
did you take some
; materials from the archives with you?
24
A. I explained that to you. I have already answered,
25
three or four times, that question
I delivered the last of
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4720
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the materials that I had to Omar Garrison on that date.
Q. What about the materials that you left with Virgil
Wilhight?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, as I say, this
thing has been litigated. I went through a
prolonged trial in Los Angeles. The decision lays
out all the facts regarding this whole thing, and I
think it's improper at this point to put me through
more when I have gone through that whole thing and
the decision is what it is. I have answered these
questions before.
BY MR, COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. When you left on December 12, did you take materials
that you gave to Virgil Wilhight to hold for you?
MR. WADE: Your Honor, we object. This
certainly doesn't go to any bias against the
witness. He's been asked questions before
concerning what he took, what happened to those
materials.
THE COURT: I know he has, Mr. Wade. The
only thing I have not heard is this name yet.
MR. COOLEY: You have not heard Virgil
Wilhight, I can assure you of that.
THE COURT: Do you wish to be heard,
gentlemen, regarding this?
—
12
13
14
15
16
1 *“7
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4721
MR. I
4CM0RRY; Yes.
(Following proceedings held in
chambers.)
THE (
30URT: Let's hear it.
MR. (
:OOLEY: The witness testified previously
in this case
; that all the documents he got came from
Omar Garrison. I'm merely trying to show that in
fact he tool
c a couple of cartons of materials and
gave them t<
? Virgil Wilhight to hold for him the day
he left the
Church; that's all. I don't know what
the problem
is.
Furthermore, I object to him talking about
having gone
through a big trial and reading the
decision. 1
'Jone that of that is binding on this jury
on this issue.
THE
30URT: Okay. The precise question is
relating to
documents he allegedly left with Mr.
Wilhight.
rhat question he has not been asked.
MR. t
\ 7 ADE: What is the relevance of it?
MR.
IOOLEY: The relevance is he said he got
all the documents from Omar Garrison.
THE
30URT: Isn't this impeachment, now?
MR. T
tfADE: He said he took documents to
Garrison; the documents that he had of the Armstrong
case were c<
jpies of documents he got from Garrison.
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4722
With respect to wilhight or any other documents, I
don't quite understand exactly what Mr. Armstrong is
saying. I understand what he is saying with respect
to the fact he took documents from the Church, that
he was not supposed to take documents from the
Church. That's exactly what's litigated in the
Armstrong case, whether or not he had a right to
take those documents or not.
And I think what Mr. Armstrong is saying,
what makes a tremendous amount of sense, is now we
are getting back to documentation taken from the
Church, what was taken from the Church. That was
the issue litigated in the Armstrong case, and that
case went on for something like six or seven weeks,
two months. He was on the stand for fifteen days.
And now, are we going to start litigating that issue
again? It seems to me the Church is estopped, in
fact. If they are making an issue of it, they've
lost that case.
MR. COOLEY: Estopped? He has testified here
that all of the documents that he got came from —
Omar Garrison. He gave at least two cartons of
documents to Virgil Wilhight to hold for him.
That's all I'm asking.
THE COURT: Do you want to be heard, Mr. McMurry?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4723
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
MR. McMURRY: Yes, Your Honor. It cannot
possibly go to bias.
THE COURT: I don’t think this is bias. I
think this is some other purpose.
MR. McMURRY: So it is not relevant. Number
two, it is within the doctrine of collateral
estoppel, which says that: all claims that were
litigated or could have reasonably been litigated in
the Church of Scientology of California vs.
Armstrong are precluded from further inquiry in a
court, under any guise or any reason.
We won't be finished on May 19th on
Armstrong’s case if this continues. We have now
been two-and-a-half days on so-called bias. This is
clearly —
THE COURT: I don't think this is bias.
MR.COOLEY: This isn't a question of bias, this
deals —
THE COURT: Now we are going back into his
regular line of cross-examination.
MR. COOLEY: Right. This is dealing with
what he has already — he’s already testified to in
this case, and I simply want to show that he had two
— at least two boxes of documents that he took and
left with Virgil wilhight, not Omar Garrison,
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4724
MR. McMURRY: Then it goes to nothing. It's
not relevant to any point.
THE COURT: Tell me where it fits in. They
can impeach on certain grounds in Oregon.
MR. COOLEY: It ? s a prior inconsistent
statement. I have prior testimony which he talks
about leaving two boxes with Wilhight, and if he
doesn't admit it r I'm going to show it to him.
THE COURT: Do you want to talk about prior
inconsistent statements? That's your basis you are
saying this is for?
MR. COOLEY: Yes. But if he says he did
leave them with wilhight, then I won't have to deal
with it. If he doesn't, then I will show it as a
prior inconsistent statement.
THE COURT: Different thing though.
MR. McMURRY: Prior inconsistent statement
must have some relevance to the issues in the case
before the Court.
THE COURT: They go toward playing the
devil's advocate, Gary. Let's say we are going
toward credibility.
MR. McMURRY: Then you've got credibility:
"Were you ever reprimanded at school for being
tardy?" For goodness sake, it has to be probative
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4725
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of some issue in the case for which he was put on,
for which he testified in direct examination. This
goes to character, Your Honor. This isn't some
prior inconsistent statement on a fact that is
relevant to the inquiry before this Court, not every
inconsistent statement you have made in your
lifetime.
THE COURT: No. In this case — let me try
to get this into some sort of perspective. In this
case, he said he took certain documents, he gave
them to Omar Garrison. That's what he said so far.
You then want to ask him didn't he also give
documents to Virgil Wilhight?
MR. COOLEY: Right. To hold for him,
THE COURT:Then my question to you, Mr. Cooley,
would be so what.
MR. COOLEY: The point I — he has already
given sworn testimony in this case right here that
all of the documents that he got were obtained from
Omar Garrison? that the route that they took were
that he, in his official capacity as researcher for
the LRH biography, was sending documents to Omar
Garrison; and after he left the Church, he got them
back in the form of copies from — some of them in
the form of copies from Omar Garrison. That's his
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4726
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
testimony.
And I'm attempting to establish that he
didn't get all of those documents from Omar
Garrison, that he had given two cartons of them to
Virgil Wilhight to hold for him.
THE COURT: If we get into that question and
answer, then don't we get into the situation of, on
redirect, then saying to him: "Well, okay, wasn't
an issue like this litigated in California?"
MR. COOLEY: I don't see how that decision
comes in here. He has given testimony here. I
don't have to accept as gospel everything he says
here without impeaching him. But to put in Judge
Breckenridge's decision here, by way of redirect —
THE COURT: You were saying he stole
documents, is what you are saying, isn't it?
MR. COOLEY; I'm saying that he has not —
when he said that he gave — got them from Omar
Garrison, that he is not telling the complete truth.
THE COURT: Okay. The inference being that
he stole them?
MR. COOLEY: Unless he takes the position
they went from Wilhight, then to Garrison, too.
That would be consistent. And I don't know what his
position is on that score.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4727
MR. WADE: It seems to me if we get into this
area, of the documents, whether or not he stole the
documents, if there are any questions what happened
to the documents that became the Armstrong
documents, then I think we should have a right on
redirect to put in the memorandum of decision.
THE COURT: I thought I just said something
to that that effect, if we are going to get into
that, then it would seem to me if that's the issue
that was tried — and I don't know, I'm going to
have to rely on you gentlemen — if that's the issue
that was tried —
MR. COOLEY: The Church of Scientology of
California is a party here and was a party there.
THE COURT: So was Armstrong.
MR. COOLEY: But the Mission of Davis wasn't.
MR. McMURRY: Mr. Runstein hasn't objected.
THE COURT: You can ask it.
MR. COOLEY: If the price is that that's
going to come in, I'm not going to —
THE COURT: Earl, that's an anticipatory
ruling.
MR. COOLEY: You have already suggested it to
me Judge.
THE COURT: I said I can envision that's
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4728
1
what's goinc
1 to happen. I can envision they would
2
probably do
that. I'm not suggesting to them that's
3
what they should do. That's up to Gary.
4
(Following proceedings held in the
5
presence the jury.)
6
THE (
20URT: You may continue, Mr. Cooley.
7
MR. (
300LEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
8
BY MR. COOLEY:
[Continuing)
9
Q. As of mid June 1981, by whom were you employed?
10
A. I workec
3 for L. Ron Hubbard.
11
Q. Did you
report at that time directly to Laurel
12
Sullivan?
13
A. Yes.
14
(Defendants' Exhibit 884 was marked
15
for identification.)
16
BY MR. COOLEY:
[Continuing)
17
Q. I show ;
fou what's been marked as exhibited 884 for
18
identification.
And I ask you, sir, whether that is a letter
19
written by you t<
d — or a communication written by you to
20
Laurel Sullivan <
Dn June 15, 1981, and whether at the bottom is
21
her response?
22
A. Yes.
23
MR. (
ZOOLEY: I offer it. Your Honor.
24
MR. 1
tfADE: No objection, Your Honor.
25
THE (
20URT: 884 will be received.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4729
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Did I mention 883 was received, also?
MR. COOLEY: I think you did. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Defendants’ Exhibit 884 was admitted
into evidence.)
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. In this letter you are asking, in substance, what
your — why don’t you read your letter to Laurel and her
ersponse to you.
A. "With the termination of MCCS, can you tell me where
the Archives Trust Plan is at? Who is handling? What is the
general plan? How are my actions regarding artifact, museum
affected?"
Q. Would you read her response.
A. "The Archives Trust is being turned over to R
accounts, whose hat it is to handle, inventory and determine
who owns what. After that is done, then legal can take on the
business of setting up a trust. Right now, it doesn't affect
what you are doing. You are working for the CSC and supported
by SOR belonging to CSC. When the new corp gets set up, you
will be paid by the new corp, but very likely will receive
your project funds by CSC. But will cross that bridge when we
come to it."
Q. She says you are working for the CSC and supported by
SOR belonging to CSC. Does that mean you were working for the
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4730
1 Church of Scientology of California, supported by Sea Org
2 Reserves belonging to the Church of Scientology of California?
3 A. That is what is said by this document, however, what
4 the actual truth is — and this document went into evidence in
5 the Armstrong trial. And it turns out that Laurel, who had
6 the job of protecting L. Ron Hubbard and protecting the
7 connection to L. Ron Hubbard, was simply saying that, was
8 covering the fact. We could not admit at that time to a line
of communication to L. Ron Hubbard. Laurel testified in the
10 Armstrong trial as to the significance of what she said here.
11 I know what I was asking. Her answer was a PR answer which
12 had to be.
13 Q. Her answer was a lie?
14 A. Her answer was as directed. Her job in the
15 organization was to cover L. Ron Hubbard’s control. That was
16 what MCCS was all about. Mission Corporate Category Sortout
17 was — the purpose of it was to allow L. Ron Hubbard to
18 continue to control the organization while not be legally
19 responsible for it. And the Archives Trust was part of that
20 and there were a series of corporations which were being set
21 up by MCCS. Laurel was involved, I was involved, because I
22 was on the MCCS mission in the early days, in the early part
23 of 1980. The thing went on until approximately July of 1981.
24 And the corporations which were being considered by the MCCS
25 mission finally resulted in what became known as ASI, Author
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4731
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Services Incorporated.
Q. Sir, is that a lie that she wrote there that you were
not working for CSC. She says you are working for CSC. Is
that is a lie?
A. Well, in a sense yes, and in a sense no. CSC is L.
Ron Hubbard. He controlled the whole thing. I was in the
personal office of L. Ron Hubbard. I was working on L. Ron
Hubbard's biography. His attorney said that, in fact, in
order to get around the inurement problem, I would have to be
paid by L. Ron Hubbard.
Q. Were you ever paid by L. Ron Hubbard?
A. That problem had —
Q. Were you ever paid by L. Ron Hubbard?
A. That problem had not yet —
MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, will you ask the
witness to answer the question.
THE COORT: Just a second.
THE WITNESS: I explaining the fact changed,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Just a second, Mr. Armstrong.
That's not too tough a question. His question is
were you ever paid. You can answer it yes or no and
then go ahead with your explanation.
THE WITNESS: No, I was not. I was to be
paid. That problem had not yet been worked out by
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4732
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the MCCS mission. Shortly thereafter, the people
who were in my situation, because I was in fact not
only in reality working for L. Ron Hubbard, because
everyone in the organization — he runs it — works
for L. Ron Hubbard, but I was working on his things
personally for which he was going to get a great
deal of money. He was going to get the lion's share
of this biography project which I was working on.
And the people who were in a position such as me who
worked directly for L. Ron Hubbard on his personal
things, ultimately moved over into ASI, Author
Services Incorporated. The profit corporation had
to be profit in order to get around the inurement
problem, which was a problem that the organization
was trying to resolve.
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. Did your money come from the Sea Org Reserves?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Were the Sea Org Reserves the property of Church of
Scientology of California?
A. Well, in a sense, yes, and in a sense, no. I
couldn't —
Q. Wait. Please, could we deal with the yes sense first
and then you can tell us about the no sense.
A. Well, they were part of the Scientology corporation.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4733
1
However, L. Ron I
lubbard was the one individual who could order
2
Sea Org Reserves
to do anything.
3
Q. Was he e
signatory on any of the accounts?
4
A. He dicin'
t have to be. He just simply issued the
5
orders. He ordered it at the beginning of 1980 that unlimited
6
Scientology funds
be you allocated to get him a Nobel prize.
7
Q. Did you
see that order?
8
A. Yes, I c
lid. I worked on that project.
9
Q. And did
you get him a Nobel prize?
10
A. Thankfully, no.
11
Q. Now, it
says you are working for the CSC and
12
supported by SOR
belonging to CSC; all I want to know is
13
whether that's the truth or whether that's a lie?
14
A, The truth of the matter is •—
15
Q. Is that
the truth or is it a lie, please.
16
MR. V
JADE: Objection, Your Honor. He's
17
trying to answer the question.
18
THE C
X)URT: Okay. Now first off, did you
19
understand t
.he question?
20
THE Y
7ITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
21
THE C
’OURT: Okay. The question is is it the
22
truth or is
it not the truth. You can answer that
23
and then you
can go ahead and explain it.
24
THE Vi
7ITNESS: Okay, Your Honor,
25
In a sense, it's the truth. The truth is
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4734
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
laid out in
the — in my case, this issue was
litigated extensively —
MR.
COOLEY: I object to that. Your Honor.
THE
COURT: We don't want to talk about your
case at the
present time. Okay? Without reference
to your cas
e, you can make your explanation as to
his questio
n. Without the preface of whether it was
litigated o
r not. If you understand his question,
you can answer his question. Okay?
THE
WITNESS: Well, I — yeah. Your Honor,
can I just
say one thing.
THE
COURT: No.
THE
WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. COOLEY:
(Continuing)
Q. This is
an internal document, this Exhibit 884, is it
not, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. You wrote a letter to Laurel, Laurel answered you.
Isn't that correct?
A, Yes.
Q. And you
asked a specific question, and the answer
that you got was
— or part of the answer you got was that you
were working for
the Church of Scientology of California and
being supported
oy Sea Org Reserves belonging to the Church of
Scientology of C<
alifornia.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4735
1 Now, you say that is true in a sense and untrue in a
2 sense. Now, in what sense is it true? And after you finish
3 that, you can tell us in what sense it is untrue.
4 A. It's true in that everything, L. Ron Hubbard
5 included, was Church of Scientology of California. And that’s
6 also the fact that makes it untrue. L. Ron Hubbard ran —
7 runs the organization. I worked for him, personally. We
8 could not admit to that and we had to continue this charade.
9 This document is taken out of context. It's a single
10 document. There is a mass of documents. The mass of which
11 proves the fact that L. Ron Hubbard controlled the
12 organization and that I was working for him.
13 Q. How many direct communications did you have from L.
14 Ron Hubbard concerning the biography?
15 A. I believe there were three,
16 Q. Are they the documents we have seen here and we have
17 placed in evidence?
18 A. We have seen two of them, I believe.
19 Q. The first one was his response to your petition?
20 A. That’s correct.
21 Q. The second one was what?
22 A. Nonexistence formula.
23 Q. And the third was what?
24 A. It was a report on what had gone on to date.
25 Q. Report from you to him?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4736
A. Right.
Q. What was the date of that, do you recall?
A. Well, it was before he dropped out of sight, so it
was before March of 1980.
Q. You just — you then had only been working a couple
of months; correct?
A. I had been working in the Sea Organization since
February 1971.
Q. No. I'm talking about on the biography.
A. That's correct.
Q. Your research work, your petition was approved in
February; right?
A. January.
Q. And you made a report to L. Ron Hubbard just before
he left in March?
A. It's probably February.
Q. And in that, did you summarize for him any
misrepresentations that you claim were being made about his
history?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Now, going back to the criticisms that you had been
giving to Laurel and to anyone else that you communicated with
concerning misrepresentations about Mr. Hubbard's background,
is it your testimony that you confirmed that there never was a
cattle ranch in Montana?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 37
A. I have stated what I have found to that time and what
2 I knew this was. I knew that there was a horse ranch. I knew
3 there was a homestead that his father had. I knew, from going
4 through school records, where L. Ron Hubbard was living, from
5 his earliest years. I recall he was five years old living
6 down in Helena, and he lived down there for a number of years
7 — Helena, Montana. And to say that he was raised on his
8 wealthy grandfather's cattle ranch is the misrepresentation.
9 Q. Incidentally, in the course of your research, did you
10 ever come across any photographs of Mr. Hubbard astride a
11 horse or —
12 A. There is one.
13 (Defendants' Exhibit 885 was
14 marked for identification.)
15 BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
16 Q. I show you what's been marked as Exhibit 885 and I
17 ask you whether, in the course of your work as a researcher
18 for the Hubbard biography, you came across those photographs?
19 A. All but one of them I have seen before.
20 Q. Which one haven't you seen, sir?
21 A. 1952, London. Well, I'm not sure. Maybe
22 Johannesburg, 1961.
23 Q. That's this one here?
24 A. I believe that's how they are marked, yes.
25 Q. All the rest, did you find as you were searching
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4738
through the archives? I'll take out the one you never saw
before. You recognize that as L. Ron Hubbard, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Then I'I
LI leave it in. When you were searching
through the archives, did you find these photographs?
A. I found
— I say found — I was the first one in
perhaps some years to find some of them. Some of them were
available in the
organization and I was not the one to find
them. They were
included in photographic archives which, up
to a certain point, were separate from the biographical
archives which I
accumulated.
MR.
:00LEY: I will offer Unfortunately I
don't have
a duplicate. I will show the photographs
to Counsel.
MR.
’JADE: Your Honor, we are going to object
to these on
the grounds of relevancy. The
photographs
of L. Ron Hubbard are simply irrelevant.
MR.
200LEY: These are part of the research
that Mr. Armstrong did.
THE (
10URT: Why don't you let me rule before
we have argument, I can save a heck of a lot of
time.
MR. <
COOLEY: All right, Your Honor.
THE
10URT: I'm going to overrule the
objection.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4739
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. COOLEY: Good.
MR. COOLEY: I almost talked myself out of
that one.
THE COURT: You are right. You almost did.
MR. WADE: Could I ask a question in aid of
an objection?
THE COURT: You may.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. WADE:
Q. Mr. Armstrong, were you aware of any photographs of
L. Ron Hubbard that were taken that were destroyed by the
organization because they did not show him in a flattering
light?
A. That is what they told to me.
Q. Would you explain, please, what photographs we are
talking about and who told you they were destroyed?
MR. COOLEY: I object.
THE COURT: That's a matter for redirect, Mr.
Wade. It doesn't go to this particular exhibit.
THE COURT: 885 is received.
MR. COOLEY: Thank you. Your Honor.
(Defendants' Exhibit 885 was admitted
into evidence.)
CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION
25
BY MR. COOLEY:
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
47 40
Q. Now, Exnibit 885, the first photograph in here, Mr.
2 Armstrong, is a photograph of L. Ron Hubbard as a small boy
3 astride a horse. Were you able to determine where that was
4 taken?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Perhaps I'll get closer to you?
7 A. The answer is no. If I did, I may have known at the
8 time, because I did ask his family, and if that's true, I
9 don't recall it. Maybe on a tape of an interview I did with
10 them. But in any case, it doesn't ring a bell.
11 Q. Here is a photograph of Mr. Hubbard which is labeled,
12 "Boy Scout Montana, 1918". Do you remember this photograph?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were you able to verify that this was indeed Mr.
15 Hubbard in a boy scout getup in Montana in 1918?
16 A. Now, I —
17 MR. COOLEY: May I approach the witness, Your
18 Honor?
19 THE COURT: You may.
20 BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
21 Q. This is the photograph I'm talking about. We can
22 look at it together. It looks to be Mr. Hubbard lying on a
23 tree stump in a Boy Scout uniform in 1918. Were you able to
24 verify that that was indeed him in Montana at that time?
25 A. Well, my recollection is ■— you see, L. Ron Hubbard
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 41
would have been in 1918, seven years old. And first of all,
2 that's not a boy of seven.
3 Q. Let me see the date on that.
4 A. But he was not a Boy Scout when he was seven years
5 old. So I would say that that's inaccurate. I would also —
6 My guess is — Although I don't know for certain, my guess is
7 that may be in the Pacific Northwest.
8 Q. Where in the Pacific Northwest?
9 A. The Bremerton area.
10 Q. All right.
11 MR. COOLEY:’ Do you mind if I show these to
12 the jury as we go along, Your Honor?
13 This is the photograph we have been talking
14 about in the Boy Scout uniform. This is the first
15 one we talked about, on the horse.
16 BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
17 Q. Now, the next photograph is labeled Guam, 1927. Is
18 that a photograph that you located in the course of your
19 search of the archives?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And were you able to verify that that was a
22 photograph of Mr. Hubbard on the island of Guam in 1927?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. COOLEY: That's the photograph. That's a
25 big round hat he's holding on his stomach.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4742
1
MR.
tfADE: Objection Your Honor to the
2
comments of
counsel.
3
THE
COURT: Yes, Mr. Cooley.
4
BY MR
. COOLEY:
(Continuing)
5
Q.
Now her
e's a photograph that says, "China, 1929."
6
And this is Mr,
lubbard here, is it not?
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
And who
is that, his mother?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And is
that his father?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Were yo
li able to verify that that photograph of Mr.
13
Hubbard and his
parents was taken in China in 1929?
14
A.
I believe it was 1928,
15
Q.
All right.
16
MR.
COOLEY: This is the photograph we are
17
talking about.
18
(Photograph was shown to the jury.)
19
BY MR
. COOLEY:
(Continuing)
20
Q.
Now, here's a photograph that's labeled Puerto Rico,
21
early
'30s. Is
that Mr. Hubbard there?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
And is
that a photograph that you came across while
24
you were researching the materials for the biography?
25
A.
The organization already had that one.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4743
1
Q.
And wen
s you able to verify that that was indeed a
2
photograph of Mr
. Hubbard taken in Puerto Rico around in the
3
early 1
30s?
4
A.
Only by
his statement.
5
Q.
There i
s no doubt in your mind that that's him?
6
A.
Tha t 1 s
correct.
7
MR.
300LEY: This the small snapshot. This
8
is
Mr. Hubbard here.
9
(Photographs were shown to the jury.)
10
BY MR.
COOLEY:
(Continuing)
11
Q.
Now, here is a photograph dated Washington, D.C.,
12
1931.
Is that a
photograph of Mr. Hubbard leaning against an
13
old-style airplane?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And veri
3 you able to verify that that —
16
Incidentally, wa.
s Mr. Hubbard a pilot?
17
A.
Not licensed.
18
Q.
Did he
Ely?
19
A.
Yes, he
did.
20
Q.
And was
this one of the photographs you dug out of
21
the archives?
22
A.
The organization had that one.
23
Q.
All right.
24
(Photograph was shown to the jury.)
25
Q.
I show
fou another photograph; It says Washington,
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4744
1
D . C« ,
1931. Is 1
;hat L. Ron Hubbard in that photograph?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
Helmet c
md goggles?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
What is
he sitting in? The cockpit of an airplane or
6
what?
7
A.
A glide]
•
8
Q.
A glide]
:? Okay. Is this something you dug out of
9
the archives?
10
A.
Tha t 1 s c
an organization photo, as well.
11
(Photograph was shown to the jury.)
12
Q.
Here's i
a photograph that says approximately 1932,
13
possibly Rion, R-
-i-o-n, Air Force Base; that's a photograph of
14
four men. Is th<
s one on the extreme left L. Ron Hubbard?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And he 1
= standing next to an old airplane?
17
A.
Correct
»
18
Q.
Do you
enow any of the other three men?
19
A.
I did not identify them. I may have had from a ■—
20
From a
similar photo, I may have had notes on it, but I can't
21
recall
right now
22
Q.
Were yoi
a able to establish where this was taken?
23
A.
Nothing
other than what you have got there.
24
Q.
All right.
25
(Photograph was shown to the jury.)
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4745
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Incidentally, were you able to determine whether in
those days you could fly without being licensed by anyone?
A. Well, he did.
Q. Now, here's a photograph dated Puerto Rico, 1932. Is
that a photograph of L. Ron Hubbard?
A. Yes.
Q. And were you able to confirm that this photograph was
taken in 1932 or thereabouts in Puerto Rico?
A. No. It's from 1934, and it's in Maryland.
Q. The state of Maryland?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you have any idea what he's doing there?
A. He's pretending to pan gold.
Q. How did you determine that was taken in Maryland?
A. Because I had a photograph, I had press in which he
sent a letter to the press, and there was an article that was
written about it, which he sent in to the press. And there's
a picture of his then wife, Louise Grubb Hubbard, in exactly
the same spot and exactly the same — She took this photo; he
took her.
Q. How did you find out it was Maryland and not Puerto
Rico?
A. I'm telling you why.
Q. There was a letter that established that it was
Maryland?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 46
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. There was a letter, there was — his wife was there.
He was not married to his wife in Puerto Rico, he was married
to her in Maryland, and that's a picture from the property
they had in Maryland.
(Photograph was shown to the jury.)
Q. What property did they have in Maryland? Where was
it located, Mr. Armstrong?
A. Bealsville — I don't know, some —
Q. Here's a photograph that's dated 1935. Is that Mr.
Hubbard sitting at a typewriter?
A. Yes.
Q. And it says the picture was taken possibly in New
York. Were you ever able to establish where, in fact, it was
taken?
A. Not with certainty.
(Photograph was shown to the jury.
Perhaps you could ask Mr. Hubbard.
Q. I'll drop him a line.
A. Good.
Q. And here's a photograph of Mr. Hubbard. On the back
it says, "Washington state, 1940." Is this a photograph from
the archives? Is it a photograph of Mr. Hubbard?
A. Yes.
Q. He seems to be standing on a log next to a river or
stream. Do you have any idea where that was taken in
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 47
Washington?
2 A. No,
3 (Photograph was shown to the jury.)
4 Q. I show you a photograph that just says "1943" on the
5 back of it. It's a photograph of Mr, Hubbard in uniform. Is
6 that a photograph that you dug out of the archives?
7 A. I did have it in the archives. I think that's also
8 an organization photo,
9 Q. Do you have any idea where it was taken?
10 A. I believe it was New York, and I think it was 1942.
11 Q. '42 instead of '43?
12 A. I think so.
13 (Photograph was shown to the jury.)
14 Q. Now I show you a photograph that on the back of it is
15 dated "approximately 1943, West Coast, Washington state."
16 It's a photograph of two men. Is the one on the left L. Ron
17 Hubbard?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you know who the one on the right is?
20 A. It's a guy by the name of Roy Molton. He's ■— He was
21 the second in command onboard the vessel that they had.
22 Q. Was L. Ron Hubbard in command of that vessel at that
23 time?
24 A. Yes, It was not Washington state, as he's got here,
25 it was in the Albina Shipyards here in the Portland area.
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4748
1
(Photograph was shown to the jury.)
2
Q. I show
you a photograph that is dated London, 1950.
3
Is that a photograph of Mr. Hubbard standing next to a sports
4
car?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. Do you
■enow where that is in London?
7
A. I did know at one point; I don't think it's '50, I
8
think it's '52.
9
Q. Did you
verify that that photograph was, in fact,
10
taken at or abou
t that time?
11
A. Yes.
12
(Photograph was shown to the jury.)
13
Q. Now I show you another photograph dated 1952, London.
14
Is that a photograph of L. Ron Hubbard in an easy chair
15
reading one of his own books, Self Analysis and. Diane.tics?
16
A. That's
him.
17
Q. Did that come out of the archives?
18
A. Yes, it
did.
19
Q. Did you
confirm that that was genuine photograph at
20
or about that time in London?
21
A. Yeah.
I assumed it was.
22
(Photograph was shown to the jury.)
23
Q. I show
you a photograph that says, "Johannesburg,
24
South Africa, 1961." Is that a photograph of L. Ron Hubbard
25
in Johannesburg,
South Africa, at or about that time?
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4749
A. Yes, it is.
2 (Photograph was shown to the jury.)
3 Q. Now I show you a photograph that says, "United
4 Kingdom, 1963, Saint Hill. Is that a photograph of L. Ron
5 Hubbard at the Saint Hill Organization in the United Kingdom
6 in or about 1963?
7 A. Yeah, I wouldn’t call it Saint Hill Organization.
8 It was at his home.
9 Q. Where was Saint Hill over there? Where was it
10 located?
11 A, A couple of miles from East Grinstead, in Sussex.
12 (Photograph was shown to the jury.)
13 Q. Then I have a photograph of L. Ron Hubbard on a
14 motorcycle, labeled "Parade Marshal, East Grinstead, Sussex,
15 approximately 1963." Is that a photograph from the archives?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And was it taken at or about the date it bears in
18 connection with some parade in which he was the parade
19 marshal?
20 A. As far as I know, yes.
21 (Photograph was shown to the jury.)
22 Q. Now we have a paragraph that just says, "England,
23 1965." I ask you if that's a photograph of L. Ron Hubbard, as
24 he appeared in 1965, in England?
25 A. That's L. Ron Hubbard. I'll go with the date.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4750
1 (Photograph was shown to the jury.)
2 Q. Now, sir, I show you a photograph which is a
3 photograph of L. Ron Hubbard that says, "Canary Islands,
4 1967," and he's holding a tripod with what appears to be a
5 movie camera. Is that a picture from the archives?
6 A. That was a — I think this is from off the cover of a
7 magazine.
8 Q. What magazine was that on?
9 A. This may be a photo. But in any case, the same one
10 appeared in an auditor magazine, for sure, and perhaps in an
11 advance magazine.
12 Q. Do you know what the the camera is all about? Was he
13 a photographer?
14 A. Yes, he was.
15 Q. Have you seen many of his photos?
16 A. I saw something that was called the "Dazzling Display
17 of his Creative Genious", and —
18 Q. I take it you didn't agree with the dazzling nature?
19 A. No. But in any case, he was a photographer.
20 Q. As a matter of fact, didn't he shoot some movies or
21 some training films and didn't you assist in that project?
22 A. That's right. He made a great deal of money off of
23 me.
24 Q. Weren't you in charge of sets?
25 A. For a brief period.
G. ARMSTRONG - X ~
4751
Q. Before you went into the RPF?
A. No.
Q. Oh. Here f s a photograph about 1973 in Lisbon. Is
that a photograph of Mr. Hubbard as he appeared in 1973, and
were you able to confirm it was, in fact, taken in Lisbon?
A. It's in Setubal.
Q. Where is that?
A. Portugal.
Q. Finally, there is a photograph labeled "approximately
1975, Jamaica." And I ask you whether that is a photograph of
L. Ron Hubbard in 1975 in Jamaica?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that a port at which the Appollo called in
1975?
A. This is in Port Royal.
Q. In Jamaica?
A. Jamaica is a big island. We called — We were in
Kingston.
Q. I understand. But the Appollo, you had not yet set
up a land base at Clearwater; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And so, had you scouted out the port in Kingston?
A. Yes. In fact the Mission orders for that are here in
the courtroom somewhere.
Q. And you had recommended that be a port of call, had
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4752
1
you?
2
A.
That's
correct.
3
Q.
This photograph was taken at that time?
4
A.
While w<
2 were there, yes. Not during the Mission.
5
(Photograph was shown to the jury.)
6
Q.
Now, di<
3 the museum, for which you were collecting
7
artifacts, ever
get set up in LA before you left the
8
organization?
9
A.
No.
10
Q.
Did you
participate in the collection of those
11
artifacts?
12
A.
Yes, I
3id.
13
Q.
And I think you have already testified that included
14
a lot of
his science fiction stories that you had bought as a
15
collection; correct?
16
A.
There were science fiction stories in the collection.
17
that is
correct.
18
Q.
And it
Included many, many photographs; far more than
19
what we
have seei
i here, of Mr. Hubbard over the years?
20
A.
I don't
understand your question.
21
Q.
In othei
r words, part of the collection that you put
22
together
includec
3 a whole — it covered photographs that were
23
far greater in number than the photographs that we have just
24
put in here?
25
A.
That's
correct.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4753
Q. And they covered virtually his entire life?
2 A. Well, the last photos that I had — and those were
3 some of the photos which were stolen from me — the last one
4 was 1980, January 1980, and I never had anything after that.
5 In fact, the latest one that I actually had in the archives
6 was 1978. It was only after I was outside the organization
7 that I came across this — these 1980 photos, and those were
8 part of what was stolen.
9 Q. How many of those were there?
10 A. There were thirty photos that were stolen. Fifteen
11 covered a period in 1973, when Mr. Hubbard was hiding in
12 Queens, New York, and fifteen covered the period from 1978
13 through 1980, and approximately half of them were from 1980.
14 Q. And where did you get them, sir?
15 A. The 1973 photos I got from a man by the name of Jim
16 Dincalci.
17 Q. Is he a Scientologist?
18 A. He was in the organization. He was L. Ron Hubbard's
19 medical officer for a period of time. He was with him in 1973
20 in Queens, New York. The other ones came from a woman by the
21 name of Kimma Douglas, and she was with Hubbard in Hemet,
22 California, when they were in an apartment complex which we
23 referred to as X. And she left the organization in the
24 beginning of 1980.
25 Q. Who stole your photographs?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4754
1
A. Well, initially they were held by a man by the name
2
of Virgil wilheit
Virgil Wilheit had promised me some money
3
for the three sets of photos: my photos, Dincalci's photos,
4
Douglas's photos.
I turned them over to him. The date went
5
past when he was
supposed to pay for them and I called him,
6
and he said he had turned them over to the organization and he
7
said he was contacted by a man by the name of Lyman Spurlock
8
who, Virgil said,
told him that he was an organization
9
attorney, and Lyman had shown Virgil a declare on me. It's
10
called suppressive person declare. And this was sometime in
11
the end of April,
and Virgil gave him the photos, so Virgil
12
said.
13
I went
:o the organization within a day to get back
14
the photos, and \
various people knew about it there: Terri
15
Gamboa, John Alesso, Steve Marlow, at least one more guy; and
16
these people all
refused to give back the photos. Later, in
17
my trial, Terri (
3amboa testified that when she got the photos.
18
she had destroyec
3 them.
19
MR, C
300LEY: I object to that. Your Honor.
20
THE C
:0URT: Just a second, Mr. Armstrong,
21
there's an c
objection and I have to hear it.
22
MR. C
:OOLEY: He's about now to tell us about
23
testimony ii
i another case. I don't mind if he tells
24
us about —
I asked him who stole them, and he's
25
telling me a
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4755
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: Is your next explanation going to
be part of the answer to his question?
THE WITNESS: I only had one more line and
that was that she — you know, I only knew up to the
point that they had them. In my trial she testified
that she had destroyed them.
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q, Now, was Virgil Wilheit a Scientologist?
A. Yes.
Q. You gave these pictures ■— thirty of them, is that
it?
A. Forty-five.
Q. Thirty-five. Five of them were of your wedding, were
they?
A. Forty-five.
Q. I'm sorry.
A. Well, my wedding —
Q. How many pictures of your wedding were there?
A. Let me explain. There was and I believe fifteen of
them were photos of L. Ron Hubbard. So there was interspersed
in this album — I didn't have any particular use for it
anymore, and I need the money, so fifteen at least, I can't
give you a total count of photos, but there were fifteen of
Hubbard within my album and there was fifteen of Hubbard from
the Dincalcis and fifteen of Hubbard from the Douglas's.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 56
1 Q. All right. Which Douglas is that, Kimma Douglas?
2 A. Kimma Douglas.
3 Q. So some of those photographs belonged to her. How
4 did you get them?
5 A. Well, I happened to be out at her place and we were
6 talking and she mentioned she had photos. I knew that there
7 was a market for them and, in fact, I — Virgil had many times
8 been looking for photos because there was a number of
9 Scientology collectors around, people who deal in Hubbardinia,
10 and between us we came up with the idea, and Virgil agreed.
11 Upon Virgil's agreement, I went to her and put together an
12 album which contained her photos.
13 I did a — I typed up a description of each one, she
14 signed it. I did the same with the Dincalcis; I typed up a
15 description. She signed it or Jim Dincalci signed it. You
16 know, so that whoever was buying these things knew where they
17 were coming from, they were authenticated and, you know, had
18 — it was something that had a value within the Scientology
19 collectors' world. There's a reference to the fact that I did
20 this in the B1 material which has been produced.
21 Q. You gave them over to Virgil wilheit. What was he
22 supposed to do? Sell them for you?
23 A. Well, when I turned them over to Virgil, he said that
24 he already had sold them. In fact, he called up and I — he
25 left a message on my answering machine and he said, "Get them
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 57
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
to me right away? they are sold." And —
Q. When did all this occur?
A. April 1982.
Q, When you found out that the photographs had been
turned over by Virgil wilheit, was it to Lyman Spurlock?
A. That's what Virgil said.
Q. Did you go to the LA Org to get your pictures back?
A. No. I went to Virgil and Virgil said they were with
the — that Lyman Spurlock had taken them. I went to the CMO
building, not to the LA Org.
Q. You mean in the Cedars Complex?
A. That's correct. It's a separate building, separate
from the other organizations. And it was always called the
CMO building, and that's where Lyman and the various other
people later became ASI, Author Services — Terri Gamboa,
Norman Starkey, Lyman Spurlock, that's where they were
situated. That's why I went there, knowing they were the ones
that had them.
Q. So you went — did you go into the building?
A. That is correct.
MR. WADE: Your Honor, excuse me. But in the
interest of time, we would object to the line of
questioning on the grounds of relevancy.
MR. COOLEY: He raised the question that his
pictures were stolen, therefore, I have to pursue
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4758
1 it. It's part of an explanation to a question that
2 I asked that doesn't have anything to do with stolen
3 pictures. He mentioned stolen pictures and every
4 time he does that, I have to pursue the line of
5 questioning, Your Honor.
6 MR. WADE: Your Honor, at times witnesses
will mention collateral things that happened. It
does not mean that we go — We object on the grounds
of relevancy.
THE COURT: Is it about at an end, Mr.
Cooley?
MR. COOLEY: Just about.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. When you got to the CMO building, you spoke to Terri
Gamboa, did you not?
A. No. Initially, I spoke to three men — John Alesso,
18 Steve Marlowe, and an unidentified man.
19 Q. Did you talk to Terri?
20 A. Terri came down after a — probably fifteen or twenty
21 minutes of rather heated demands and refusals. And she
22 finally came down, sau her briefly. She said go get an
23 attorney. And that's when I knew that I was fair game.
24 Q. You didn't have any reason to believe prior to that
25 time that you were in any difficulty?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4759
1 A. Oh, I knew prior to then, because I knew there was a
2 B1 operation out to — at a minimum locate me and to gather
3 information about me, because various friends of mine, and
4 friends of my wife's at the time, were contacted by B1
5 operatives. I knew that this was going on. I know that's the
6 way they operate. I knew when Virgil said that he — upon
7 seeing the declare on me, the declaration, the suppressive
8 person declare, I knew.
9 But that was an extremely traumatic point in it and
it was that night I stayed up all night. I was extremely
terrified. My wife was terrified, and that was the point I
contacted one of the people, the Dincalcis, whose photos had
been stolen, and they had already — or were just then getting
back from having met Michael Flynn, who, up to that point, I
still considered an enemy. And on their recommendation, I
flew up to see him at the nearest possible time. So the
beginning of May, I met with Michael Flynn and saw him,
because I thought my life was at risk.
Q. When you marched into that CMO office and fought over
these photographs, you were not afraid for your life, were
you?
A. I think that if they recorded that meeting, it will
show that it — I was pretty afraid. I even took along Omar
Garrison and his wife and my own wife as witnesses. Because I
felt that me, they would do something to if I went alone, but
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4760
1 Omar Garrison is a 73-year-old man. His wife is similar age.
2 I knew that they were also wogs, and he agreed to go and I
3 felt there was a great deal of security in the fact that they
4 did come along.
5 Q. They were with you at all times?
6 A. They were either with me or right beside me. At one
7 point we went — they wanted me out of the lobby area where I
8 was and into this little side room. But he was there. He
9 heard the whole conversation.
10
Q. Didn't 1
Terri give back the pictures that were yours
11
in your album?
12
A. I got those back from Virgil. The other ones, I did
13
not get back.
14
Q. The pictures you got back were the pictures of your
15
wedding to Terri
Gamboa?
16
A. That's '
correct.
17
Q. Aboard
the — well, when you were posted to the
18
Apollo?
19
A. That's '
correct.
20
Q. So thosi
e pictures of your wedding you got back and
21
the other picture
es you did not get back; is that a fair
22
statement?
23
A. That's '
correct.
24
Q. You hav<
e testified about this Ph.D. degree Mr.
25
Hubbard got, from which you described as a diploma factory.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4761
1
Sequoia
University?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
Did Mr.
Hubbard allow himself to be known by the term
4
"doctor"
, pursuant to his Ph.D.?
5
A.
Certainly for a time he did.
6
Q.
And didr
i't he, in fact, abolish any reference to him
7
by that
title?
8
A.
There was a time when he did make that statement. I
9
think he
spurns ]
Ln this thing, that type of degree.
10
(Defendants' Exhibit 886 was marked
11
for identification.)
12
BY MR.
COOLEY:
(Continuing)
13
Q.
I show ]
fou what has been marked as Defendants'
14
Exhibit
886 and e
isk you if you recognize that as a Hubbard
15
Communication Office Policy Letter of February 14, 1966?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And were
> you aware of that HCO Policy Letter sometime
18
after you joined
Scientology?
19
A.
Sometime
s after, yes.
20
Q.
And you
became a Scientologist in what? '69? '70?
21
A.
'69.
22
Q.
Are you
reading it, sir?
23
A.
Yes, I c
im.
24
Q.
All right. I'll give you a moment.
25
A.
Okay.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4762
Q. Would you read this to the jury, please.
2 MR. WADE: Your Honor, I don't believe it's
3 in evidence.
4 MR. COOLEY: I'm sorry. Your Honor. I offer it.
5 THE COURT: It's now been offered.
6 MR. WADE: Well, we have no objection to him
7 reading it at this time. I think, Your Honor, the
8 fairness doctrine, I can't remember the name of the
9 rule, we could perhaps also have him read a later
10 policy letter which we have in evidence in the green
books which
refers to him as a doctor.
12
MR.
COOLEY: I think that's more like
13
redirect.
14
THE
COURT: That's redirect.
15
MR.
WADE: We withdraw the objection. Your
16
Honor.
17
THE
COURT: Okay. I think you are thinking
18
of Rule 109
or 106.
19
MR.
WADE: Yes, Your Honor.
MR.
COOLEY: You term it Mr. Runstein's rule.
21
THE
COURT: Yes, we term it Mr. Runstein's rule.
22
(Defendants' Exhibit 886 was admitted
23
into evidence.)
24
BY MR. COOLEY:
(Continuing)
25
Q. Would you read that, Mr. Armstrong?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4763
A. "Doctor title abolished. In protest against the
abuses and murders carried out under the title of 'Doctor,' I
abandon herewith all my rights and legitimate use of this
title, as the name has been disgraced. I was a Ph.D., Sequoia
University, and therefore perfectly valid doctor under the
laws of the State of California. My beloved grandfather was a
doctor" — He was a veterinarian — "and was known as such"
Q. Just a moment. A Doctor of Veterinary Medicine; is
that correct?
A. I guess so.
Q. You don't consider that to be an ignoble profession,
do you?
A. No, not at all.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. We don't have to
argue about that. That's a perfectly nice legal
profession.
MR. COOLEY: It's awful hard to get into
veterinary medicine.
THE COURT: I know. We can speed it up
without having to go into what he thinks about
veterinarians.
THE WITNESS: "My beloved grandfather was a
doctor and was known as such throughout his life.
Through the ages the term 'doctor' has meant a
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4764
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
learned man, but in modern times has been stained by
it's preemption by medical doctors and
psychiatrists, and I do not care to be associated in
any way with faceless men or ignorant butchers or
muderers" — Excuse me — "the title of 'Mr . 1
implying Master, I also abandon. I wish to be known
solely by my name 'Ron' or 'Hubbard', an honorable
name in the fields of philosophy and exploration.
"Any and all DSCNs may apply for and receive
a new certificate and the title 'Dean of
Scientology.' I wish to call attention that any
certificate ever issued by me is valid first by my
signature and second by the laws of the country in
which its corporation is founded. The originator of
a subject traditionally has the right to qualify
persons in that subject. And this is the chief
source of any titles of learning,
"I could, with ease, defend any use of the
term 'Doctor' in any nation, but the name has come
into question by association. This is the second
time I have requested not to be so named. First was
in the late fifties in Washington, D.C., but people
have continued the practice against my wishes, and I
have not lately been active in correcting them. No
secretary, press spokesman, or LRH communicator may
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hereafter refer to me as 'Doctor' or sign my name as
such.
"I have been a captain of sailing vessels,
captain of corvettes, a sergeant of marines in my
extreme youth, a commander, and many other captions.
And as a Scientologist knows, one has had other
names. L. Ron Hubbard is a proud enough title or
humble enough; I wish it to so remain. The wide
world calls me plain 'Ron'; that is more than good
enough for me, signifying as it does the friendship
and confidence of the many. They are my friends.
L, Ron Hubbard."
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. Now, did it come to your attention at any time that a
press release was given out by Mr. Hubbard resigning his
degree as a Doctor of Philosophy?
A. I have seen that.
(Defendants' Exhibit No. 887 was
marked for identification.)
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. I show you what has been marked as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 887 for identification, sir, and I ask you if that
is recognized by you as a press statement issued by Mr.
Hubbard, published in the London Times on March 8, 1966, in
which he resigned his Ph.D.?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4766
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. I have seen this.
MR. COOLEY: I offer it, Your Honor.
MR. WADE: Your Honor, unless we can tie it
up that Miss Christofferson had knowledge of this,
it’s irrelevant.
MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, it was done in 1966.
Miss Christofferson didn't get involved with
Scientology, if my memory can go back that far in
this case, until 1975. Whether it came to her
attention or not, there are documents that have gone
in here dated 1935 that I doubt came to her
attention, either. But they have been offered by
Mr. McMurry.
THE COURT: I don't think that's a valid
objection, Mr. Wade. Overruled.
(Defendants' Exhibit No. 887 was
admitted into evidence.)
BY MR.COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. Would you read that to the jury, Mr. Armstrong.
A, "The Times, London, Tuesday, March 8, 1966. Public
notice. I, L. Ron Hubbard, of Saint Hill Manor, East
Grinstead, Sussex, having reviewed the damage being done in
our society with nuclear physics and psychiatry by persons
calling themselves 'Doctor', do hereby resign in protest my
university degree as a Doctor of Philosophy, Ph.D.,
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4767
1
anticipating an
sarly public outcry against anyone called
2
Doctor. And although not in anyway connected with b treatment
3
or treatment of
:he sick, and interested only and always in
4
philosophy and the total freedom of the human spirit, I wish
5
for association <
if any kind with these persons, and do
6
publicly declare
and request my friends and the public not to
7
refer to me in any way with this title. Signed, L. Ron
8
Hubbard."
9
Q. Now, yoi
l have testified in connection with the Ph.D.
10
that Mr. Hubbard
held from Sequoia University, that Sequoia
11
University was a
diploma mill and that somebody — Cecil B.
12
DeMill's son, Richard, and somebody by the name of VanVost
13
assisted in getting Mr. Hubbard this degree. Correct?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Now, th<
5 degree from Sequoia University was obtained
16
in 1950; was it i
lot?
17
A. I'm not
sure if it was '50 or '51.
18
Q. It was ^
/ery close in point of time to the publication
19
of Dianetics;_The Modern Science of Mental Health; was it
20
not?
21
A. Yes, it
was.
22
Q. And in i
:he course of your research on Mr. Hubbard's
23
bioaraphv. did you not learn that Dianetics: The Modern
24
fisifinss- .Qi-M entail
. Health, was submitted to Sequoia University
25
as the qualifying piece of writing to support that degree, and
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4768
2
3
4
5
6
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
that on the basis of that writing, Sequoia University gave the
degree of Ph.D.?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. So the degree of Ph.D. was not conferred upon Mr.
Hubbard simply because he applied for it and they cranked it
out of a mill; they gave it to him as an earned degree on the
basis of his publication of Dianetics ; did they not?
A. It was arranged by the people that I noted.
Q. Yes. But the book, Dianetics , which had recently
been published was submitted to Sequoia University and they
accepted it as meeting the qualifications of a doctoral
thesis; did they not?
A. That's correct.
THE COURT: I gather by hand upraised, you
want a recess?
MR. COOLEY: Yes. That's the way we used to
do it in kindergarten.
THE COURT: All right. Members of the jury,
we will take our afternoon recess at this time.
Remember my cautionary instructions.
(Jury was excused. Court recessed at
3:02 p.m., resumed at 3:27 p.m.)
MR. COOLEY: I want to report to the Court
25
that Mr. Peterson has made the appropriate phone
call. He has been assured the tapes will be here
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4769
tomorrow.
THE (
:00RT: How about the other matters?
Let l
Sr. Peterson report to me.
MR. C
:OOLEY; All right.
MR. I
’ETERSON: I can assure the Court that
under the Rodriguez letter or any other type of
police authorization, there have been no videos,
tapes, tape
recordings, or anything of that nature
regarding Mi
:. Flynn, Joyce Armstrong, Mr. McMurry,
Mr. Wade, or
any other person. The other items of
documentation, I have relayed the information.
There are two people that have to be contacted and
they are looking for that information and I'll
report latei
• on that.
THE C
X5URT: All right. And that leaves just
the subject
of the two tapes that are on their way?
MR. I
3 ETERSON: They are on their way. And
the big broad general documents, EDs, orders, and
all that stuff concerning Mr. Armstrong, I'll check
on that tonight. I may return to Los Angeles to do
a search, myself, but I think we have produced
everything v
iith those five boxes, plus the
hundred-and-
-twenty-thousand odd that were produced
earlier in t
:he case, I think we have about covered
everything,
but I will make a check, myself.
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4770
THE <
COURT: Okay.
Has j
somebody been going through these boxes
over here?
MR. 1
VIcMURRY: Yes, Your Honor, we have.
Those were ]
packets of documents that we marked for
identification yesterday over the noon hour. The
two that were not claimed to be privileged. We have
marked thos<
5 254, I believe, through 261, if I'm not
mistaken, which we will be addressing somewhat
later. Yes
, it's 257 through 261. Correct.
THE i
COURT: All right.
(Following proceedings held in the
presence of the jury.)
BY MR. COOLEY:
(Continuing)
Q. Did you
, while you were still a staff Scientologist,
prepare an affidavit for submission in the Burden case?
A. I believe it was prepared for me, but, yes.
Q. Was it i
signed by you?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it l
used in the Burden case?
A. I don't
know if it was or not.
(Defendants' Exhibit 888 was marked
for identification.)
BY MR. COOLEY:
(Continuing)
Q. I show :
^ou what has been marked as Defendants'
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4771
>
i
i
»
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Exhibit 888 and I ask you whether that is an affidavit of
yours signed by you in connection with the claims of Tonja
Burden? This affidavit being dated April 12, 1980.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you prepare this affidavit?
A. No. It was prepared for me.
Q. Did you furnish the information that was in this
affidavit.
A. I was interviewed by a person from a legal bureau of
the Guardian's Office.
MR. COOLEY: First of all, I offer it, Your
Honor.
MR. WADE: Your Honor, I'm not sure the
entire document would be relevant. Some parts of it
certainly are and some are not.
MR. COOLEY: I can make the statement of
relevance if required, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don't know whether Mr. Wade is
making an objection or not.
MR. WADE: Perhaps we can take a minute and I
can find out what parts the defendants seek to use
in the affidavit. We may have no objection.
25
THE COURT: Okay.
Gentlemen.
MR. WADE: In fact. Your Honor, we would
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4772
1
withdraw oui
: objection to the entire thing. No
2
objection.
3
THE <
ZOURT: I am already up, Mr. Wade.
4
MR.
tfADE: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I will try
5
to withdraw
my objections sooner next time.
6
THE (
ZOCJRT: It will be received.
7
(Defendants' Exhibit 888 was admitted
8
into evidence.)
9
BY MR. COOLEY:
(Continuing)
10
Q. Who interviewed you and then prepared this affidavit?
11
A. I don't
recall the gentleman's name. There would be
12
something in the
Guardian's Office files regarding this
13
interview. But 1
le was a GO operative in the legal bureau.
14
Either this one
ir another one I was involved in, another one
15
during the same j
period regarding Ann Rosenbloom. There was a
16
GO staff member
lamed Norm Taylor and there was actually two
17
staff members involved in this thing and one gentleman, I
18
don't recall his
name.
19
Q. Were yoi
l in charge of the RPF at the time that Burden
20
was there?
21
A. Really -
— yes, within the RPF.
22
Q. That is
the RPF has its own internal structure, too,
23
doesn't it, just
like my other department or branch?
24
A. That's <
correct.
25
Q
And what was your post in the RPF?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4773
A. I was the Bosun Emeritus. It's just a title. I was
2 really the RPF Bosun, but I had been in the RPF for so long
3 that there was another person who I trained up on the post and
4 he was taking it over, and I was trying to get in enough
5 auditing to get out of the RPF. And there was this title
6 given to me of, rather comically, the Bosun Emeritus.
7 THE CODRT: If I make a suggestion. We have
8 so many terms we are using here of letters, that it
9 would be helpful if we could identify it by
10 something besides just RPF or CSW or whatever.
11 BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
12 Q. RPF means Rehabilitation Project Force, doesn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You get into the RPF when you have done something —
15 it's kind of punishment duty, isn't it?
16 A. I'm sorry?
17 Q. It's punishment duty, isn't it?
18 A. It's punishment, yes.
19 Q. And it's designed to — as the word says,
20 Rehabilitation Project Force is to get you in there and get
21 your act straightened away; isn't that right?
22 A. It's designed to break your will and make you more
23 malleable and controlable.
24 Q. Well, are the matters in this affidavit true?
25 A. The matters in the affidavit are, in large part.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4774
1 false, twisted, nitpicking, and they give a completely
2 inaccurate picture of the RPF and Tonja Burden’s activities in
3 the RPF.
4 Q. When you swore under the penalties of perjury that
5 the first fifteen paragraphs of this affidavit were true to
6 the best of your knowledge and were made entirely of your own
7 free will, that was a perjured statement, was it?
8 A. One does not have any free will in Scientology.
9 Q. The question is, was this a perjured statement?
10 A, The whole thing was a lie, yes.
11 Q. Was this the first time you had lied under oath?
12 A. I lied from the first day I got into Scientology
13 until I left.
14 Q. And on how many occasions did that — did you lie in
15 judicial proceedings?
16 A. Well, the two that I know about are these two
17 affidavits. There may be more, but I certainly know about
18 Miss Burden's and Miss Rosenbloom's case.
19 Q. You testified, you recall, on direct examination
20 concerning payments to Mr. Hubbard on account of royalties for
21 books that he had written. Do you remember that testimony,
22 sir?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And did you, as a biographical researcher for Mr.
25 Hubbard, become familiar with his writings on which he was
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4775
paid royalties?
A. To some
degree, yes.
(Defendants' Exhibit 889 was marked
for identification.)
BY MR. COOLEY:
(Continuing)
Q. I show ]
fou what has been marked as Defendants'
Exhibit 889 and 3
[ ask you whether that photograph is a fair
representation oi
: the publications and writings of L. Ron
Hubbard on which
he has been — has collected money or been
paid royalties?
A. Do you r
nean currently?
Q. At any 1
:ime.
A. I would
say he's been paid for them all, yes.
MR. (
ZOOLEY: I offer it. Your Honor.
MR. \
"JADE: No objection.
THE (
330URT: 889 will be received.
(Defendants' Exhibit 889 was admitted
into evidence.)
MR. (
300LEY: May I approach the witness, Your
Honor?
THE (
20URT: You may.
MR. (
HOOLEY: First of all, may I just display
this to the
jury?
(Defendants' Exhibit 889, photograph.
shown to the jury.)
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4776
1 BY MR.COOLEY: (Continuing)
2 Q. Incidentally, do you know that these are displayed in
3 the Hubbard Museum down in Los Angeles?
4 A. I have never been there.
5 Q. Over on the right-hand side are a bunch of soft-cover
6 magazines, science-fiction magazines, is this the collection
7 that you purchased for some — what was it? Sixty-five
8 thousand dollars?
9 A. I cannot tell you that.
10 Q. Do you recognize any of the books in there?
11 A. I can't tell you if that's where they came from.
12 Q. Over here are some more of those kinds of
13 publications, down in here. Famous Western, Ad Astra, and he
14 was a writer in those magazines before he founded Scientology,
15 wasn't he?
16 A. Not Ad Astra. Ad Astra was is a current publication
17 and they reprinted one of his old stories.
18 Q. He wrote for Argosy, didn't he?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And these are the magazines in which stories of his
21 had been published; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And up here, here are the green books, what are those
24 books?
25 A. They are called the Organization Executive Course.
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4777
1 Q. And he holds the copyright on those, does he not?
2 A. I assume so.
3 Q. And the blue books are what?
4 A. Called Research and Discovery Series.
5 Q. And he holds the copyright on those?
6 A. I assume so.
7 Q. And the red books are what?
8 A. The Technical volumes.
9 Q. Those are the Scientology Tech?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And he holds the copyright on that?
12 A. I assume so.
13 Q. What are these books down here?
14 A. Those are packs of — they appear to be policy
15 letters which postdate the green volumes.
16 Q. What are these blue binders here? Did you ever see
17 those before?
18 A. Yes. Those are ■— they possibly contain within them
19 the tapes and perhaps the transcription of the tapes of what
20 was called the Philadelphia Doctorate Course from Philadelphia
21 in December 1952.
22 Q. Up here is Battlefield Earth , that's a rather
23 recently current novel he has written, isn't it?
24 A. 1980-81 period.
25 Q. Were you still in the Church when he wrote that
G. ARMSTRONG - X
477 8
novel?
2 A. I was in the organization. In fact, I worked on the
3 project.
4 Q. That sold pretty well, didn't it, that book?
5 A. That's possibly the representation. I don't know.
6 Q. You know it's currently being made into a movie?
A. I haven't heard that.
MR. WADE: Objection, Your Honor.
Irrelevant, move to strike.
THE COURT: I don't see the relevance of
that.
MR. COOLEY: They have gone in quite of
sources of income and I am showing writings on which
he receives income that has nothing to do with the
Church.
THE COURT: Well, all right. The witness
answered he is not aware of it in any event.
18 MR. COOLEY: I understand that, Your Honor.
19 BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
20 Q. Is one required to undergo auditing in the RPF, the
21 Rehabilitation Project Force?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And did you undergo auditing there?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you prepare a success story upon exit from the
G. ARMSTRONG - X
477 9
1 RPF?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And is that success story audited to determine its
4 verasity?
5 A. Did you say audited to determine verasity?
6 Q. Yes. In other words, whether you write a success
7 story, are you audited to determine whether or not you
8 genuinely are being sincere in the writing of that success
9 story or whether you are making it up to get out of the RPF?
10 A. You are put on a meter, if that's what you mean.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. You are put on a meter.
Q. You are put on a meter to determine whether you have
any withholds with respect to your handling your case? isn't
that right?
A. I think you are — why exactly you are put on the
meter is one part of the control system, but I suppose
withholds is a part of it, although that's not a question that
you are asked after the writing of a success story.
Q. In light of your experience — well, let me just show
you a document.
(Defendants' Exhibit No. 890 was
marked for identification.)
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. I show, sir, what's been marked Defendants' Exhibit
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
47 80
1 No. 890, and I ask you whether that was written by you and
2 whether it bears your signature "Gerry" at the bottom.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you tell us when you wrote that?
5 A. End of November 1977.
6 Q. Is that about the time you got out of the RPF?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The first time?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Are the statements in there true?
11 A. In answer —
12 Q. Why don't you take your time and read it. I'm sorry,
13 I didn't mean to question you before you do that.
14 A. They are not true.
15 Q. Are any of them true?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Would you tell me — I take it there are a lot more
18 — far fewer true ones than there are false ones; is that
19 right?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Tell me which ones were true.
22 A. "It was a long haul, seventeen months to the day."
23 Q. I'll mark a "T" on that. Anything else?
24 Just that first sentence is the only true part of that
25 paragraph?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 81
1 A. Some paragraphs down, I said, "I had the rare
2 opportunity also to be the RPF Bosun for about nine months."
3 Q. That's a true statement.
4 A. "I acquired a list of a hundred close, close friends.
5 I have been through a lot of battles with these guys, all of
6 whom I love dearly."
7 Q. And that's a true statement. Anything else?
8 A. That's about it.
9 Q. Is everything else in here untrue?
10 A. Everything else in there reflects a very warped
11 mental condition at did you believe it to be true when you
12 wrote it?
13 A. I didn't even question it. It was the mental
14 attitude that a person in my situation had at that time. It
15 does not reflect reality. It reflects the degradation I had
16 been put through where I end up thanking my captors for having
17 degraded me,
18 Q. In here you say, "It was a long haul, seventeen
19 months to the day." That, you say is a true statement,
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Then you say, "But there is not one minute of that
22 time regretted, because I was always of the" — "I was always,
23 because of the nature of the RPF, progressing towards the goal
24 of full honesty and redemption." That was untrue you say?
25 A. I was just getting progressively more broken and
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
47 82
1 degraded.
2 Q. "I had the tremendous good fortune to do the RPF at
3 the precise time LRH put his attention to recompiling and
4 perfecting of X" — what is that?
5 A. Expanded Dianetics.
6 Q. Expanded Dianetics Tech?
7 A. Expanded Dianetics Tech is a technique in Scientology
8 auditing in which you find people's evil purposes and you
9 audit those evil purposes, having them relate instances in
10 their life in which those evil purposes have manifested
11 themselves or driven them to particular behavior.
12 Q. Although you wrote you had the tremendous good
13 fortune to be doing it at that time, you say that isn't true?
14 A. As I say, you know, this man, L. Ron Hubbard, stuck
15 me there for seventeen months and did a lot of things to my
16 mind which no human being should do to another's mind, and I
17 was degraded to the point where I ended up thanking him for
18 that opportunity.
19 Q. What was it that caused you to go into the RPF, do
20 you remember that?
21 A. I had what's called a "fire fight". I swore at Mary
22 Sue Hubbard's communicator, Nikki Merwin.
23 Q. Where did this take place? Clearwater?
24 A. No, it was in an apartment complex, staging area for
25 the La Quinta property, and it was in Culver City. It was in
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 83
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
June of 1976,
Q. You say, "I was also of common good fortune to have
the Flag senior" — I can’t read the next thing on my copy,
something — "Lieutenant David Mayo on the line overseeing RPF
Expanded Dianetics Auditing and Tech in general, and of course
to audit under him" —
MR, WADE: Your Honor, at this point we are
going to object on the grounds of relevancy,
THE COURT: Please remain seated,
(Following proceedings held in
chambers.)
MR, WADE: Your Honor, at this time it
appears that defense intends to go through, again,
various statements made by people during, before, or
after Rehabilitation Project Force, other things
they wrote in the Church, Now, we went somewhere
along this line with respect to affidavits, but
those affidavits concerned court cases, Rosenbloom's
case and another case.
However, here we are getting back into that
area that is completely irrelevant to the case, I
mean, whether or not the statements he makes about
the RPF are true or false have nothing —
THE COURT: I know, Mr, McMurry, I know you
25
are very upset. You are visibly up set
I can see
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that. If you want to put it on the record, go
ahead,
MR, McMURRY: I really do, Your Honor. We
are leading up to the same technique. These people
have been put in concentration camp; they have been
degraded, humiliated, absolutely brainwashed, and
degraded beyond belief. This man is about ready to
break down again,
THE COURT; He's going to crack again.
MR, MCMURRY: Exactly, for the purpose —
THE COURT; He is; I will tell you that.
MR. MCMURRY: You don't put these people
through this just for the purpose of what?
Character? Prior inconsistent statement? Bias? If
this man isn't biased — he has every right in the
world to be. He's been in one of the worst
concentration camps this world has ever known. We
are going through it again as to what is true and
not true. This is the most despicable kind of
tactic I have ever seen in my life, and I think it's
time to put a stop to it. Under any theory of law
— any theory of law known to this country, this is
the worst abuse I have ever seen.
THE COURT; How is this relevant?
MR. COOLEY: This has been — all of the
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 85
1
success sto]
ries of all of these witnesses have been
2
permitted ii
i as a counterpoint to what the witnesses
3
have testified to here. Now I understand, he's
4
putting in
plenty of statements explaining that the
5
stuff in here isn't true and that he was brainwashed
6
an all of that. But he's making those explanations
7
as he goes
along. We have done it ■— we did it with
8
the success
stories with every one of these
9
witnesses who was in the RPF, and I can't think of
10
one of them
who wasn't, except for Walters, who was
11
a public Scientologist. And Franks was in the RPF.
12
Homer Schomer was in the RPF. The admissibility of
13
the success
stories written at the time they were
14
coming out
Df the RPF have been admissible in this
15
Court from
bhe beginning. I have recognized what
16
price I hav<
5 to pay when they explain that
17
situation.
18
THE
30URT: What purpose does it have to do
19
with this witness?
20
MR.
ZOOLEY: This witness has testified to
21
the horribl<
5 conditions prevailing in the Church,
22
has testified to the way he was treated, he has
23
testified t(
5 what he says the RPF is. I'm entitled
24
to say what
he said then.
25
MR.MCMURRY: There was no reference in his
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 86
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
direct examination to RPF. None. It's all elicited
by defense, and then they go to impeach the witness
from their own cross-examination for one intent
only. Not credibility. Not character. Not prior
inconsistent statement. Not sworn statement. Not
bias. It's an attempt to harass, intimidate and
break, for other purposes, this witness, just as he
did with each one of the prior: Mr. Franks and Mr.
Schomer.
MR. WADE: If I can add to that, Your Honor,
Mr. McMurry and I talked after seeing what was
happening to the other witnesses, these kinds of
things brought back, these things which are, to
them, terrible things. And we deliberately stayed
away from any mention of RPF on direct examination.
MR. COOLEY: You see, Your Honor, one of the
problems I have been confronted with is that when I
ask a question of a witness, it doesn't call for the
elicitation of RPF or anything else, but under the
guise of explaining, he does it. Now he's been
doing it and doing it, and I am expected, once he
does, it's not to be touched again.
THE COURT: But, Mr, Cooley, you keep going
into these things.
MR. COOLEY: That's my point.
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
47 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: Like the RPF. Nothing was
mentioned about RPF, except that he was in charge of
it. Period.
MR. COOLEY: This case is replete with his
references to the RPF.
MR. WADE: Not on direct.
MR. COOLEY: That's the point. I am forced
to sit there and I can't stop him from volunteering
things that I believe are not responsive to the
question, under the guise of explaining them. Then
when I try to deal with them, after he's done that
THE COURT: What you are dealing with is a
point by point here. He's just got through
testifying that it's not true. Now why do we have
to go throughout it point by point with him?
MR. COOLEY: I don't have to go into it point
by point. Your Honor. Except, some of the things
that he is says are untrue, for example, that he had
the good fortune to be under Mayo and to have
audited with Mayo. I don't believe he considers
that untrue.
MR, WADE: Good fortune?
THE COURT: He says it's untrue. Everything
which he told you is true. The rest is untrue.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 88
1
That's what
he says.
2
MR. (
:OOLEY: All right. May I read it to the
3
jury? He doesn't have to deal with it.
4
MR. t
"JADE: Your Honor, in the first place,
5
that exhibit
: isn't in evidence, and we object to
6
that exhibit
:. We object on the grounds it's
7
irrelevant,
not only irrelevant, but we object on
8
the grounds
that it is harassive of the witness to
9
get into th:
Ls area and pull him through that.
10
THE
30URT: I'm beginning to think something
11
is drastically wrong and I think ■— I'm not trying
12
to try your
case, Mr. Cooley, but I think the jury
13
is beginnin<
3 to think something is drastically wrong
14
hear when not one witness, not two witnesses, but
15
now we are -
— with three now, and we are going to
16
have a fourth time, when they are breaking down
17
having to g<
d through these things. Now that's more
18
than coincidental.
19
MR.
300LEY: The jury will draw what conclusions
20
the jury draws. That's what we are here for. Your
21
Honor may have a different attitude.
22
THE
30URT: It's not my attitude. I'm only
23
passing it
Dn to you as an observation.
24
MR.
200LEY: Things strike different people
25
different ways. The trial of a case before a jury,
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 89
2
3
4
5
6
you never know. But I'm trying the case according
to the best judgment I can bring to it, and if I'm
wrong, I'll learn in short order. I hope.
I hope I don't take too long to lose if I am going to
lose.
MR. RUNSTEIN: This particular line of
statements such as, "I had fabulous auditing from my
twin, Andrew Cavelle, who cared tremendously I get
through totally and become sane. I became an
auditor, a goal every Scientologist has had. I
audited almost one thousand hours on my twin in the
RPF. The education was pricesless." Now, it may
well be the jury may believe that's false when he
says it's false, but the jury might also believe
that's true.
MR. COOLEY: He's out a Class III auditor; he
was not an auditor when he went in.
THE COURT: Here's as far as I can possibly go
with this now, and once again I'rn going to exercise
— you know, we have been talking about the right of
cross-examination and so forth. And you have been
referring to the right of confrontation, and I have
let you do that. When you talk about the right of
confrontation, if you read the case law and the
Oregon Code, primarily they're talking about
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4790
1
criminal cases.
2
MR. (
DOOLEY: It applies —
3
THE
DOURT: I can point out the verse and
4
section in 1
:he code, in our code, that talks in that
5
language, exactly. It further states that the trial
6
judge has the discretion to control the time of
7
cross-examination, I have not done that because I
8
realize how
important this case is.
9
Now V
*e're into the scope, the breadth — but
10
the time.
C don't want to do that, because I want
11
to give you
— you know, I want you to have your
12
chance to present your case. But at some point, we
13
have got to
say enough. This is going into a point
14
by point; that is too much. If you want to offer it
15
and let it
m, if he wants to say it's absolutelly
16
untrue, fim
5. The jury can draw whatever conclusion
17
they want.
But I don't want to read it. I don't
18
want to brii
ig it up any more. That's enough with
19
whatever th:
Is thing is called RPF.
20
MR.
DOOLEY: It's a success story, RPF
21
completion.
22
THE (
DOURT: Well, you know. Off the record.
23
(A discussion was held off the
24
record.)
25
MR
COOLEY: What is the Court's ruling?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 91
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
THE COURT: The Court's ruling is as follows:
He has been asked what is true. He has marked or
has stated what is true. He has said the rest is
false. He has given an explanation as to why it is
false, I think you can now offer the exhibit
without any further reading of it, without further
examination regarding each item on it, and the jury
can make up their minds whether it's true or false.
MR. COOLEY: I would merely state, but for
that rulings I would have examined on each of the
items on this exhibit.
THE COURT: I understand that.
MR. COOLEY: And in view of the Court's
ruling, I will not do so,
THE COURT: Okay.
(Following proceedings held in the
presence of the jury.)
MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, I offer Defendants'
Exhibit No. 890 .
THE COURT: 890 will be received.
(Defendants' Exhibit No. 890 was
admitted into evidence.)
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Cooley.
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. After you got out of the RPF, did you do any auditing
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
47 92
1
yourself, as an c
auditor ?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. How mucl
a auditing did you do?
4
MR. i
"JADE: Objection, irrelevant, Your Honor.
5
THE
a0URT: I think he can answer that
6
question.
7
BY MR. COOLEY:
[Continuing)
8
Q. Did you
become a Class III auditor?
9
A. No. I
audited everything up through Class IV and I
10
did solo auditing through OT 3.
11
Q. And where did you perform auditing?
12
A. In La Quinta and in Los Angeles.
13
Q. La Quinta was where the flims were being shot?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. About how many Scientologists have you audited?
16
MR. 1
/JADE: Objection. Irrelevant, Your Honor.
17
THE
30URT: I'll sustain that objection.
18
BY MR. COOLEY:
(Continuing)
19
Q. When di<
3 you last do any auditing, sir?
20
A. I believe, 1981.
21
Q. When yoi
a become an auditor, do you get some kind of
22
certificate of that?
23
A. Yes, yoi
l do.
24
Q. Who issued you your certificate?
25
A. I don't
know if I ever got any certificate.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 93
1
Q.
Do you i
remember when you got it?
2
A.
I don't
know if — I mean, I got the RPF auditing
3
certificates, which were not formal, pretty, sealed
4
certificates lik<
; one might get out in the — in an outside
5
organization, a i
rather nice thing. Often in the Sea Org one
6
did not
get those
i. And solo auditing, same thing. I did the
7
solo auditor's course, and I don't believe I ever got a
8
certificate, but
that was pretty standard where I was.
9
Q.
Now, am
I correct in understanding your testimony to
10
be that
you Eugene Ingram has been convicted of some kind of
11
crimes?
12
A.
No. I r
lever said that.
13
Q.
You den}
r that you did not, in front of this jury,
14
call him a convic
:ted pimp?
15
A.
No, I did not.
16
Q.
Did you
suggest he was guilty of any crimes?
17
A.
I said t
:hat he was thrown off the L.A. Police
18
Department and he
i was indicted on those particular charges.
19
Q.
Is that
what you said?
20
A.
That's v
fhat I understand. And that is my
21
recollection of v
7hat I said.
22
Q.
Did you
also say he was acquitted of any charges
23
against
him?
24
A.
No.
25
Q.
Do you }<
mow that he was?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 94
A. I don’t know.
2 Q. Do you know that he’s a licensed private investigator
3 in the city of Los Angeles at this very moment?
4 A. I have seen the license number, certainly, on that
5 document which was used in the surveillance of me.
6 Q. Did you not call Eugene Ingram’s answering service
7 and say that you were employed by him, and it was essential
8 that you receive all of his calls for that day so you could
respond to one of his clients?
10 A. No, I never said that. I said that I did call him
11 because, as I explained, when the Flynn story hit, and — that
12 is, the entrapment of Flynn with the Arabs, and I had just got
13 back from London, I called and I talked to whoever it was in
14 the answering service, and I tried to get ahold of him. In
15 the course of that, she gave me whatever she gave me.
16 Q. What did she give you?
17 A. I think she gave me where he was. I believe he was
18 on the East Coast at the time. She gave me names of a — of
19 people who called in to him.
20 Q. She gave you the list of calls he had received that
21 day?
22 A. I don't know if it was that day. It was like regular
23 people who called in,
24 Q. What did you say to her that induced her to give you
25 Engram's calls?
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4795
1
A. I don't
know. I must have been awful disarming, but
2
she was willing t
:o give me this information.
3
Q. You don
t remember though what ruse you used to get
4
those?
5
A. I don't
think I used a ruse.
6
Q. You just
: called up?
7
A. At that
time, I was very interested in getting in
8
touch with him.
In fact, I was interested in interviewing
9
him f because I was writing a book which the working title was:
10
On. the Trail of. i
Zuaene Inaram. It seems to have come to
11
fruition.
12
Q. Finish i
:hat book?
13
A. No. It
's in progress.
14
Q. Is that
the book you gave Rena?
15
A. No. By
the way, I'd like to ask if you have that
16
material?
17
Q. What die
3 you say to Eugene Ingram's answering service
18
to get her to give you his calls for the day?
19
MR. P
tfADE: Objection, Your Honor, asked and
20
answered.
21
MR. (
ZOOLEY: It hasnt been answered yet, Your
22
Honor.
23
MR.
tfADE: Yes, it has.
24
THE (
ZOURT: I think he has answered that, if
25
you want to call it an answer
G. ARMSTRONG - X
47 96
1 BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
2 Q. Am I correct all you did was identify yourself as
3 someone who wanted to interview Mr. Ingram?
4 A. I can't even tell you exactly what I said. I was
5 surprised and that's about it. I even turned the information
6 over to the Feds, because I knew that they were interested.
7 Q. And who was calling Mr. Ingram; is that right?
8 A. Well, I knew that they were involved in the Tamimi
9 thing. I knew that Mike was. I saw the Feds, the FBI, when
10 it first happened, when I first saw it in the newspaper,
within a day of that, because I felt there's an operation
going on and I wanted to at least file the report with these
guys in case something happened. So I did that and — field
it from there.
Q. When you called the answering service, did you
identify yourself as Gerald Armstrong?
A. Well, I'm absolutely certain that I did, because he
called me back in just probably five minutes after I had hung
up. And we had a — you know, it was a fairly intense
conversation after that.
Q. Is that the conversation which you say he threatened
to shoot you between the eyes?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you called up his answering service, could
251 you tell us what you said to her, and what she said to you?
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 47 97
1
A. You knov
r, I really —
2
MR. V
7ADE: Objection, asked and answered for
3
the third time.
4
THE C
:0URT: That's number three, Mr. Cooley.
5
MR. C
'OOLEY: I'm just trying to find out what
6
he said to 1
ter.
7
THE C
:0URT: I sustained it twice already and
8
I'll sustair
it the third time.
9
BY MR. COOLEY:
Continuing)
10
Q. What else did you turn over to the FBI?
11
A. Well, I
think that it probably went to the assistant
12
U.S. Attorney in
Boston.
13
Q. Brackett
Deniston?
14
A. I believe so. That was the information. Anyway,
15
whatever it was,
whatever the names were, you know, — I think
16
a couple of them
turned out to be Scientology people. One was
17
Norman Starkey and one was a name of David Aden, who's a
18
Scientologist in
Boston.
19
Q. Excuse n
le. These are people on his call list that
20
day?
21
A. I don't
know if it was that day. She described these
22
people as regular
callers. She actually put me through to his
23
wife; she patchec
1 me through in some way — I never spoke to
24
the wife — but £
»he was very helpful. You know, I don't even
25
quite know why, and I know Mr. Ingram was extremely upset
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4798
thereafter and I think ■— you know, I got along quite well
with the girl. I hope she didn't lose her job as a result of
it. We kind of shucked and jived at the time and had a
conversation.
Q. "Shucked and jived"?
A. Well, you know, sometimes you talk to some people and
get along amazingly well, and I did with her. In fact, I
think I even kidded her and said, "Do you want a date?" you
know, which I do a occasionally with young ladies when I talk
to them. Something like that. And you know, I wasn't hitting
on her or anything. It was sort of like a -- you know, kind
of like a joke. She didn't know me from Adam. In any case,
it wasn't, you know, it wasn't a big deal. And I didn't even
expect to get what I got. And what I got, in my opinion, was
completely innocuous.
Q. That's why you gave it to the FBI?
A. I give them whatever I can. To me, it was innocous;
to them, maybe it was something else.
Q. Now, you testified in a probate proceeding, didn't
you, sir?
A. I gave an affidavit in the probate proceeding.
That's the probate matter brought by Nibs Hubbard, Ron DeWolf,
regarding his father, LRH's estate. I gave them an affidavit,
and the organization took my deposition. I'm not sure if it
was one day or two days. But in any case, I never testified
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4799
in any hearing. I don't think there was a trial. But that's
2 the amount of my testimony.
3 Q. Who represented Mr. DeWolf?
4 A. I think —
5 MR. WADE: Objection, Your Honor.
6 Irrelevant.
7 THE COURT: Yes. Sustained.
8 BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. Wedid you give your affidavit?
10 A. To an attorney in the Los Angeles, by the name Wilke
11 Cheong.
12 Q. Was Michael Flynn involved in that case in any way?
13 MR. WADE: Objection. Irrelevant.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
16 Q. Did you give your affidavit after Flynn asked you to
17 or after Cheong asked you?
18 MR. WADE: Objection. Irrelevant.
19 THE COURT: Sustained.
20 BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
21 Q. What was the purpose of your affidavit in that case,
22 sir?
23 A. I would have to see it, but mainly it had to do with
24 undoubtedly Hubbard's control of the organization or
25 misrepresentations which I knew at the time.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4800
1 Q. Did it have anything to do with your opinion whether
2 L. Ron Hubbard was a alilve or dead?
3 A. Boy f I don't know. It may have.
4 Q. Do you remember?
5 A. It may have, because at that time there was a great
6 deal of speculation regarding it.
7 Q. You knew the purpose of the proceeding was to have
8 Hubbard declared dead or incompetent and to have his — have
9 DeWolf take over as administrator of his estate or his
10 aaffairs; isn't that right?
11 A. Don't know for sure.
12 Q. You don't know what that was all about?
13 A. No. Don't know the ins and outs of it. But I do
14 know that, at that time, we had the same situation in the
15 Armstrong case, where Hubbard did not come forward and I knew
16 that he was either in hiding, locked up, or dead. And
17 subsequently, he wrote a letter in my case, and I believe
18 wrote one in DeWolf's.
19 Q. And satisfied the Courts that he was alive and well
20 and not held prisoner anywhere, is that right?
21 A. At that time, I believe so.
22 Q. And before that occurred, was it your intent to
23 assist in the proceeding for the purpose of obtaining an
24 adjudication that he was dead so DeWolf could take over?
25 A. Well, no one asked me to do that, and I had my
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4801
1 deposition taken at the time and I gave them an affidavit at
2 the time. That's about it.
3 Q. Do you remember expressing doubt as to whether L. Ron
4 be Hubbard actually signed any paper that purported to be from
5 him over the last years, starting in early 1980?
6 A. Well, I knew of the practice of the organization of
7 signing documents for him. There were people in the
8 organization who could sign his name absolutely perfectly.
9 They could write his handwriting. I think that's the
10 information that is contained in the affidavit. I knew that
from back on the ship, because I had obtained notarized — I
had had documents notarized by Portugese notaries for L. Ron
Hubbard and they were not signed by him. They were signed by
a woman by the name of Joyce Popum.
I had originally ■— I brought notaries onboard ship
and had an exemplar made of Hubbard's signature, and
notarizations in Portugal are done by comparison with the
18 signature in a notary's book. Thereafter, I took documents
19 signed by Joyce Popum to these Portugese notaries on a number
20 of occasions and had them authenticated by the Portugese
21 notaries. So I knew of the practice back in the '70s and it
22 proceeded right up until — through the '80s. I knew of
23 documents in the organization authored by Laurel Sullivan as
24 if she were L. Ron Hubbard.
25 I knew that the whole, what's called Standing Order
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4802
1 Number One unit, when people wrote to L. Ron Hubbard, the
2 letters in fact never went to him. They were signed, "Love
3 Ron" on his stationery, apparently in his handwriting by
4 someone else. I used to write those letters myself on request
5 from the SO One unit when I was doing research for the
6 biograhpy. If there was a letter which came in which
7 requested biographical information, as if they were writing to
8 Hubbard, an old girl firend, for example, wrote in, I wrote
9 back a letter as if it was coming from the mind of L. Ron
10 Hubbard.
11 So I knew of these practices and I knew that — I
12 think those are outlined in the affidavit.
13 Q. Did you, in fact, have doubt as to whether things
14 signed, purportedly communicated by L. Ron Hubbard as early as
15 late '79, right on through until you learned in your case and
16 in the probate case, that he was alive, they were in fact not
17 signed by him?
18 A. As I say, some of them I knew were not. Some of them
19 I got from him and I checked out with, for example Barbara De
20 Celle, who was LRH's personal secretary at the time at the
21 special unit in Gilman Hot Springs. And one of the dispatches
22 which I got from him, which was simply a typed dispatch, and
23 it was simply signed the way he signed things back in those
24 days. Typed L, space space R. I checked with her and she
25 said that that was indeed his — that she received down a
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4803
1 cassette, an audio cassette and had typed it up from that. So
2 I authenticated that one.
3 But I knew that especially a lot of public issues
4 which were being put out by the organization, public
5 statements by Hubbard, Christmas messages and that sort of
6 thing, those were authored by other people. I knew of legal
7 documents in which the same was the case. It really depended
8 on the type of situation as to the answer that I could make as
9 to who it was from. I knew that on certain subjects it had to
10 be L. Ron Hubbard; on other subjects, it was likely that it
wasn't.
Q. Did you have any doubt that your own appointment as
his biographical researcher and his approval of that project
might not have come from him?
A. Well, that's one of the documents which I, in fact,
checked out with Barbara De Celle, to find out if indeed my
petition had gone to him and if he had responded. And she
18 told me that, yes, he did. And her initials are on the bottom
19 of this document as the typist.
20 Q. Do you remember being interviewed on the ABC
21 television show, 20/20?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And do you recall whether you were asked about your
24 opinion as to whether Mr. Hubbard was living or dead?
25 A. What did I say. He is either dead or in hiding.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4804
1
Q. I don't
know. I'm asking if you remember?
2
A. I remember something like that.
3
Q. Either c
lead or in hiding? Is that what your
4
testimony is?
5
A. I would
say the same thing now.
6
Q. I'm asking you about then. Incidentally, when was
7
that show?
8
A. I think
it was recorded in approximately — either
9
July or August 1982.
10
Q. And do y
rou recall giving an opinion that he was dead?
11
A. I don't
think I would have said, you know, he's dead.
12
I believe I woulc
J have said one or the other, either or.
13
Q. Dead or
in hiding?
14
A. Something like that.
15
Q. Do you i
■emember being interviewed by Mr. Robert
16
Lindsey of the New York Times?
17
A, Yes.
18
Q. In or about January 1983?
19
A. Something like that. There was a couple of times I
20
was interviewed t
>y him.
21
Q. Do you i
•emember this quote being attributable to you:
22
"I think L. Ron f
lubbard is either dead or he's being kept
23
locked up by this
3 group of people who have taken over." Do
24
i
you remember giving that quote to Mr. Lindsey?
25
A. Something similar to that. I — you know, I
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4805
explained it. I had a great long conversation with him and
2 some of the article that's attributed to me is definitely not
3 mine. I have never said that I carted briefcases or suitcases
4 full of fifty-dollar bills. So he has some —
5 Q. He used a little poetic license there. You never
6 said that?
7 A. Right. It sounds like it came from Nibs Hubbard who
8 had said that on other occasions. So in any case, the way I
9 felt about L. Ron Hubbard is that — and I explained this
10 before — he is, in fact, being kept locked up. All these
11 people who attack individuals like me keep him locked up.
12 It's by his own choice, of course, because he, after all,
13 installed them into the position to do what they do. But when
14 they attack individuals, when they attack people, he’s got to
15 hide. So, in fact, he's being kept locked up by the attorneys
16 who represent him, by the Pis, because he can't come out of
17 hiding, because he's responsible for the whole thing. If L.
18 Ron Hubbard wants his freedom, the boys out here are going to
19 knock it off.
20 Q, You are saying that L. Ron Hubbard is not being
21 physically kept a prisoner, that's not your thesis, is it?
22 A. No. You know, I don't know if he's alive, if someone
23 else is acting as if they are L. Ron Hubbard.
24 Q. Well, you have testified that in your case he
25 satisfied the Court that he was alive and well and not being
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4806
1 held prisoner and he did the same in the probate case.
2 A. Well, he did it in the probate case. In my
3 situation, he wrote to the Court and there were various
4 handwriting experts who authenticated the document. It was
5 not an issue there as to whether he was dead or not. It was
6 an issue as to whether or not he was going to appear in the
7 case, which he did not.
8 Q. And he reported that he preferred to remain in
9 seclusion, he told that to the judge in the probate court who
10 respected his right to do so; isn't that right?
11 MR. WADE; Objection, Your Honor. Irrelevant
12 and calls for a hearsay answer.
13 THE COURT: Sustained.
14 BY MR. COOLEY; (Continuing)
15 Q. In any event, you told the New York Times that he was
16 either dead or being held prisoner by Miscavage and his crowd;
17 right?
18 A. I think I have explained my opinion on the whole
19 thing.
20 Q. Yes. But what I'm saying is you didn't say he was in
21 hiding. That's something you put in here. In the New York
22 Times you said he ws dead or being held prisoner?
23 A. Again, you have a line from the New York Times which
24 is taken out of probably an hour and a half conversation over
25 a meal and there is one line attributed to me, and one that's
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4807
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
attributed to me which is not mine. And I would say, again,
that that's the situation. You know, what Lindsey was
interested in at that time was that story. That's what was —
that's the way I was approaching it.
Q. Now, the fellow you call Nibs Hubbard is Ronald — is
L. Ron Hubbard, Junior, isn't it?
A. Yes. Ronald E. DeWolf.
Q. He goes by the name now — has he legally changed his
name to Ronald E. DeWolf?
MR. WADE: Objection, Your Honor, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Even I fail to see the relevance.
MR. COOLEY: I'm getting to that now.
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. You met again when you took your tour up the coast
and into — on the two summers that you were working as
researcher on this biography, didn't you?
A. No. The first time I met him was in probably
October-November 1981.
Q. Were you researching the biography at that time?
A. Yes. I went with Omar Garrison, and while we were
the only two who met with Ron DeWolf at the time.
Q. You knew that L. Ron Hubbard and his son had been
estranged for many years, did you not?
MR. WADE: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: I think there was some testimony
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4808
about interviewing people, family regarding the
biographical* So I think there’s some relevance.
MR. COOLEY: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: I knew a great deal about that
situation.
BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)
Q. I’m just asking whether you knew there had been an
estrangement between father and son for many years standing?
Can you answer that yes or no?
A. I know that L. Ron Hubbard Junior continued to write
to his father. I don't know if that would be called
estrangement. His father perhaps considered that he was
estranged. In any case, Nibs, L. Ron Hubbard Junior,
continued to write to his father throughout the period that I
knew,
Q. Did you have copies of those letters?
A. I certainly had copies of some of them.
Q. In the L. Ron Hubbard files that you obtained, were
there copies of the letters written to him by his son?
A. Yes. At least the one that I got. There was a great
number.
Q. All right. Now, where did he live? He lived in
California — I'm talking about Nibs.
A. He lived in Carson City, Nevada.
Q. Did you go there to see him?
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4809
1
A. Yes, I c
Sid.
2
Q. With Omc
ir Garrison?
3
A. Yes.
4
Q. When die
3 you go see him there?
5
A. October-
-November 1981.
6
Q. October
or November of 1981?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. Had you
made up your mind to leave Scientology at
9
that point?
10
A. No.
11
Q. You didr
l't do that until December 12?
12
A. Well, within a few days of December 12. I had, by
13
December 12, moved all my personal stuff out of the
14
organization, so
it predated it that.
15
Q. Well, when was it you made up your mind to leave?
16
A. Well, as
3 I say, some days prior to that. I can't
17
give you an exact
: date.
18
Q. Was it a
m December?
19
A. Probably
r around there.
20
Q. Was it c
ibout the time that Miscavage went down to
21
Clearwater and aborted the Mission Holders' revolution?
22
MR. V
fADE: Objection, Your Honor.
23
Irrelevant.
24
THE C
ZOURT; Sustained.
25
MR. C
:OOLEY: Well, I think, Your Honor, I
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4810
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will make -
4 I will have a conference on relevancy.
THE
CODRT: Okay. Excuse us.
(Following proceedings held in
chambers.)
MR.
COOLEY: This witness, as they say in
Scientology
, blew on the 12th. The Mission Holders'
conference
that we have seen discussed here ran
until the 10th. You may recall Mr. Franks'
testimony o
n that.
THE
COURT: I do.
MR.
COOLEY: That was a palace revolution
that failed
, and Miscavage showed up down there and
that was th
e end of that revolution.
MR.
WADE: That's absolutely incorrect. I
have seen the tapes and they don't show that at all.
MR.
COOLEY: I can assure you that's what
happened.
MR.
WADE: You can't assure me of that. I
saw the tapes.
MR.
COOLEY: You may have seen the tapes.
sir f but you did not see everything that went on at
that Mission Holders' conference.
MR.
WADE: No, I know, they have be edited.
But we saw
the parts that were unedited.
MR.
COOLEY; Franks' has testified to his
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4811
introduction of David Miscavage.
THE COURT: I heard that.
MR. COOLEY: All right. And that the ovation
that he got and Miscavage quelled that Mission
Holders' revolution, there is no question about it.
MR. WADE: That's not on the tapes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COOLEY: This man blew two days later.
This man's agenda was always a power path within
Scientology, Your Honor. And I will show, through
other evidence when I put in my case, that this
witness decided to get out. The first blow to him
was when the Guardian's Office was brought down July
and August. Because that was his path to power
through Mary Sue Hubbard, is what he had in mind.
That failed him.
He cast his lot with Mr. Franks. And with
the — and with the Mission Holders' revolution and
takeover, and when that failed two days later, he
blew. And what he had been doing is, he had been
storing up his little documents against that
eventuality so that he would have a little arsenal.
He went to see DeWolf. That's the first time
I realized that he had gone that late in the game to
see DeWolf in October and November.
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4812
MR. WADE: Your Honor, we can set here and
have testimony for years of a conspiracy the Church
of Scientology can come up with their Guardian's
Office connections policies. But this is just going
way too far. He went to see Mr. DeWolf, that's part
of the project. He again went to see Mr. DeWolf.
There's no connection between his going to see Mr.
DeWolf that we have got out of this witness and
anything else. None.
So what we are going to have now is we are
going to have questions come I will object to and
the objections will probably be sustained and he is
going to ask three or four more of these. I hope
not. There is no evidence of that in this record at
all that this man had anything to do with this
Mission Holders' conference at all. If there is any
evidence of that, it's beyond the scope of direct
examination. I mean, —
THE CODRT: I'm going to read through the
rule. "Scope of cross-examination. Rule 611.
Cross-examination should be limited to the subject
matter of the direct examination and matters
affecting the credibility of the witness." That
means you have to turn to credibility problems,
where you turn back.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4813
}
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR, COOLEY: Can we stay on the first one
before we go to credibility, because I think I can
make a point there that might be worth while,
THE COURT: All right,
MR, COOLEY: I trust you will agree with me
that on his direct examination this witness made
every effort to paint a picture of benign concerned
on his part that his only agenda was to make sure
that the only good things were done and that no bad
things were done. Would you think that as part of
he cross —
THE COURT: I'm not sure he did that on
direct or cross,
MR, COOLEY: He did that on direct. Your
Honor, That's really clear.
All he was trying to do was bring out the
truth, clean up the fraud, clean up the bad stuff,
altruistic intentions. It seems to me that I'm — I
have a right to show that he was on another agenda,
THE COURT: That was on direct? He is so far
past his direct examination that I don't recall — I
thought all that came out on cross.
MR, COOLEY: It was direct. It also came out
on cross, but it was also on direct,
MR, WADE: One of the questions I didn't ask
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
him was, "Why did you leave?" I didn’t ask him
that. I didn’t even ask that.
MR. COOLEY: I Know that, but you have so
much, what they call in Scientology, Theta put in
against the Church and you hve got so much Armstrong
as the knight on the white charger on direct
examination, that it seems to me that the
fundamental principle of cross-examination is I be
allowed to show he had another agenda, which I’m
going to show.
MR. WADE: Your Honor, what we had on direct
examination were the documents. The documents he
wrote to Laurel Sullivan, the biographies of L. Ron
Hubbard, L. Ron Hubbard's transcript.
THE COURT: I know about his testimony about
the biography. We are pretty clear on that. That
was on direct. We went through that and you went
through control.
MR. WADE: That's about it.
THE COURT: Past that, I don't recall them
going.
MR. WADE: That's about it.
MR. COOLEY: I can pick out the portions of
the —
4814
25
THE COURT: I wish you would
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4815
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COOLEY: I don't have his direct
testimony here.
THE COURT: Because there is a lot of things
that are going on now that we are getting into a
collateral aspect of this case. And I know darned
well we are.
MR. COOLEY: I really don't intend to move
into a collateral area. So there be no mistake
about what I am attempting to do here, I'm
attempting to establish that this witness had an
agenda quiet different than the agenda that he
disclosed to this jury on both direct and
cross-examination. And that his agenda was a power
agenda, pure and simple. And that its ultimate
failure came when the Mission Holders' conference
failed in Clearwater on December 10, was the last
day.
THE COURT: I don't understand why you can't
just ask him that and be done with it.
MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, that isn't the way
cross-examination is done. I might as well
telegraph everything I am going to do and give him
an outline in advance.
MR. WADE: I want to make statement before we
get out of context. I can produce the document for
G. ARMSTRONG
X
4816
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Court tomorrow. The Mission Holders' meeting we
are talking about took place in December of 1981, we
are all agreed to that.
MR. COOLEY: There was one in November, as well.
MR. WADE: November and December of 1981.
The Mission Holders' conference where everybody got
thrown out — I can bring a transcript of that
conference because it's been produced by the
defendants — took place in 1982. I think it was
October or December of '82. Almost a year later
when they through everybody out.
One of the problems we are having here is
either Mr. Cooley —
MR. COOLEY: You are talking about the wrong
conference ■—
MR. WADE: — has the conferences mixed up or
what took place and what happened.
MR. COOLEY: When I'm talking —
MR. WADE: With respect to the objection we
have at this time, it is, we are getting so out out
into right field or left field on collateral issues,
and at some point we have to put an end to the
cross-examination if it comes to collateral issues.
And I have been harping on that now most of the day.
And, Your Honor, you have telegraphed to
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4817
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
everyone you are becoming more and more concerned
about this. And this is an area that we are just
getting way out in the field.
MR. COOLEY: Judge, I didn’t do anything with
that Mission Holders’ conference that he's talking
about in 1982. The one in which Bill Franks, do you
remember when he was on the stand, and he was
questioned: "Do you hold your appointment as
Executive Director International from L. Ron
Hubbard? And he said no. That's the Mission
Holders' conference I'm talking about. Now there
was another one before that in November, but the one
I’m talking about occurred over a six-day period in
December. It terminated on the 10th, and this man
blew the Church on the 12th. And there is a
connection. And that's the relevancy.
THE COURT: If you would let me finish my
analysis so you the both know where I am coming
from. I just read the rule as to scope of
cross-examination, which turns us back to the
section on witnesses and how you attack credibility,
i.e. impeachment. You can do it actually seven ways
in this state. A defective in capacity to perceive,
recall or recount is one. Character for
untruthfulness, is two. Prior criminal convictions.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4818
1
is three. ]
Bias or interest, is four. Five is prior
2
inconsistenl
t statements. There are two additional
3
means recognized in Oregonr a witness may be
4
impeached b?
{ evidence contradicting his or her
5
testimony.
6
Are ;
fou with me so far?
7
MR. (
300LEY: Yes, sir.
8
MR. (
"OOLEY: This method is subject to the
9
qualification that you can't do it on a collateral
10
matter. Anc
3 that's the area that I'm getting a
11
strong feel:
Lng we are getting into. And I felt that
12
for most of
today, that we have gone along anyway.
13
Now, —
14
MR. (
-OOLEY: Judge, do you really think it
15
was collateral?
16
THE <
20URT: I don't know. If it was said on
17
direct, —
18
MR. J
tfADE: He didn't say it on direct.
19
MR. (
HOOLEY: If a man paints himself as a
20
seeker aftei
: truth, am I not entitled to paint him
21
as a seeker
after power?
22
THE (
:0URT: Is that not character?
23
MR. C
300LEY: No. Character is what's his
24
reputation i
:or truth and verasity?
25
THE (
30URT: That's a separate one.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4819
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COOLEY: That's an attack on character.
And you hve to attack character with reference to
specific traits of character which are relevant in
the case.
THE COURT: Or prior acts.
MR. COOLEY: Yes. This is not that kind of a
thing. This is taking the posture that he has
presented and through the evidence that it is not
his true agenda. To me that is fundamental.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, I personally think
that that message has come through loud and clear.
What your theory is. I don't want to cut off your
theory of defense, Mr. Cooley.
MR. COOLEY: I appreciate that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: But we have to have some
limitation on how far we are going. I'm perfectly
willing to hear, you know, where you intend to go
and how far you intend to go with it. I can let
this jury go and we can sit in here and we can put
it on the record and we can discuss it. But I'm
getting concerned.
I'm going to read one more section to you
about what the Court's — or you can take my word
for it, that the Court has the discretion to control
the length and time of cross-examination. I think
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4820
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you would find that in there if you look. That's
where we are. If it's your theory — I'm not going
to bust down your theory, Mr. Cooley, by limiting
you, but I don't want every collateral issue in the
world brought in here in order to do it. I fail to
see that the shareholders' meeting, for example, has
a whole lot to do with it.
MR. COOLEY: The Mission Holders' conference.
THE COURT: The Mission Holders' meetings.
MR. COOLEY: Well, it was the breakdown of
the program of the Mission Holders which was to
overthrow the Watchdog Committee and the CMO, which
was then in control. And it was this fellow
Miscavage that has been mentioned here about a
hundred times, if he's been mentioned once —
THE COURT: Are we going to see Mr.
Miscavage?
MR. COOLEY: I haven't made up my mind on
that yet, Judge. Sufficient unto the day is the
evil thereof. I try play to play it a step at a
time. I don't want to borrow tomorrow's problems.
MR. WADE: Why don't we do it this was. Why
doesn't he ask him, collateral matter, he goes out
and he asks him: "Did your leaving" —
THE COURT: I can't direct him as to how to
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4821
conduct his
cross-examination, but I want to discuss
it some mor
s, because I'm feeling real uncomfortable
and I want
to listen to what your theory is.
Let
them go for the evening and we will take
this up.
(Following proceedings were held
in the presence of the jury.)
THE
COURT: Members of the jury, I'm going
take up a couple of legal matters with counsel, so
you are going to be excused for the evening. We
will start
tomorrow at 9:30.
I'm
going to caution you, because it's been
pointed out
to my attention that there is going to
be a radio
broadcast regarding this topic tonight.
The only reason I'm mentioning it to you is so you
don't inadvertently get involved in listening. It
will be on
airectly after the Blazer game on that
network. S
d don't listen. Watch the Blazer game on
television
instead of listening to your radios.
It's going
bo be on TV; do it that way so that you
can avoid getting entrapped into listening to
matters to ^
tfhich I have already warned you you
should not
oe listening to. Okay?
That
1 s the first specific time I have had to
tell something I knew about and I'm greatful to the
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4822
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
person who furnished me the information. It was one
of our media people. It gave me the opportunity to
tell you about it.
Don't discuss the case. You all know that
and you all know we have been talking about that for
six weeks. So leave your notes locked up in the
jury room and we will see you at 9:30.
(Jury was excused. Following
proceedings were held out of the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: Now tell me, Mr. Cooley, why the
mission holders' meeting has some relevance to this.
Mr. Armstrong, maybe you'd better wait
outside.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I'd like to just —
if I could ask the Court a question. I'll do that
after Mr. Cooley's done. It's not legal advice.
THE COURT: I can't give you any advice, you
know that.
THE WITNESS: I know that. So I'll wait
outside. But before —
THE COURT: All right, before everybody
leaves, you may do that. You might advise counsel
what it is so they can talk to you before you start.
THE WITNESS: All right.
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4823
(Witness was excused.)
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Cooley.
MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, I'm sure that you
saw from the development of the the examination of
Mr. Franks, at least, perhaps from my examination of
Mr. Schomer, that I consider dates to be very, very
important in an attempt to reconstruct what was
going on at a given time. When you look backward in
history and attempt to find out what was really
happening at that time — We deal with documents and
we deal with testimony and we unfortunately attempt
or are relegated to the obligation of reconstructing
events on an expost facto basis, looking backwards
in time.
Consequently, one of my approaches to
cross-examination is to study an adverse witness
from a point of view of what that witness did; not
only what he did, but precisely when he did it and
to cross-reference what information I have from him
and from other witnesses to determine what his
agenda was. It is not insignificant in my theory of
the case and in the presentation I intend to make,
that this witness, as they say in Scientology, blew
as a Scientologist on the 12th of December 1981, two
days after the palace revolution of mission holders
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4824
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
M
under the sponsorship of Mr. Pranks failed in
Clearwater, Florida.
There are documents that have been placed in
evidence here by the plaintiff. There are documents
that have been written by this man which have been
alluded to by the plaintiff and by him which show
what his — what I call his power push was. This
witness has presented himself to this jury as one
who had only the best interests of Scientology at
heart, as one whose sole agenda was to get the truth
known and to have all of these so-called
misrepresentations placed behind him to go on to
bigger and better things in Scientology.
My defense is that he had an entirely
different agenda? that his agenda was one of several
aggrandizements of the acquisition of power directed
first toward the Guardian’s Office, which failed
when the Watchdog Committee and the CMO brought down
that office, and then failed again when the Watchdog
Committee and the CMO was not brought down by the
mission holders under the leadership of Mr. Franks.
When that failed, at that point, Mr. Armstrong left.
In addition to that, Mr. Armstrong, in my
defense and through evidence that I will produce,
was feathering his own nest and building up his own
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4825
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
little storehouse of power in these biographical
documents that he was assembling. And that, sir, I
report to you is what the relevance is of my
interrogation. I am somewhat disturbed that it is
necessary for me to give a blueprint to my
opponents, but I —
THE COURT: I think you did that early on,
anyway, Mr. Cooley. That comes as no surprise.
MR. COOLEY: I would be most amazed if one of
Mr. McMurry's senses were at all shocked by this
revelation.
THE COURT: I either heard you or Mr.
Runstein say it. Whoever made opening statements
said it.
MR. COOLEY: Yes, sir. That, Your Honor, is
the relevance. I would respectfully ask the Court
that I not be required to itemize a list of the
documents that are already in evidence, upon which I
intended to some further cross-examination to
establish this power play. But that's the relevance
and I think that — I say to the Court that I am not
off on a frolic; that is, dealing with evidence that
is wholly collateral. It is my obligation and I
respectfully submit, my right — most of all my
obligation to my client to have this jury get the
G. ARMSTRONG - X -
4826
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proper picture of what this man's agenda was, and to
have this jury get the full flavor of this man and
not the flavor that he has attempted to convey of
righteousness and decency, when I know that he is a
person who appears here attacking the Church for the
sole reason that he was a loser in a power push.
THE COURT: If I hear you and understand you
correctly, you are under the subcategory of not
bias, necessarily, but interest.
MR. COOLEY: Indeed. Indeed.
THE COURT: If I understand you correctly.
MR. COOLEY: What his interest was at the
time and what his interest is now. Very briefly
stated, it is my position that this man adopted a
rule-or-ruin approach to the Church of Scientology.
When he found he couldn't rule it, he set out to
ruin it, and I think I'm entitled to show that.
MR. WADE: Your Honor, we have a man who was
a researcher for a biography project. We don't have
a man who was an ED or mission holder or anything
else. I don't want to spend too much time speaking
to the facts, but the factual concept is absolutely
rediculous. The basic comments about what happens
in the world. What happened in December 7, .1941
was, we had the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4827
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
What that had to do with what happened in Trenton,
New Jersey, when the baby was born is beyond me. If
Mr. Cooley wants to make this kind of an argument at
the close of the case, that's the opportune time for
him to stand up and to make that kind of argument.
Mr. Armstrong has testified, at the time this
mission holders' conference was taking place in
Clearwater, Florida, he was in California, nowhere
near Clearwater, Forida. As I've stated in
chambers, if Mr, Cooley wants to ask a question on a
collateral matter such as this, he asks the
question: did the mission holders' conference have
anything to do with your leaving the Church of
Scientology? He takes the answer yes or no? it ends
there.
The matter is certainly collateral. The
testimony what he testified about, what he testified
about the representations that were being made, his
research, his determining those representations were
false and the control lines of the Church of
Scientology of California. And if the Court
remembers, the control lines he talked about were
1975, 1976. That's what we asked him to do: to put
down the lines in 1975 and 1976.
On cross-examination, testimony has been
G. ARMSTRONG
X
4828
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
elicited concerning the control since that time. We
had Mr. Schomer talk about the control in 1982, and
until the present time. We had Mr. Armstrong
testify about the control on the blackboard in 1975
and 1976.
With respect to whether or not the evidence
is collateral to the issues, Your Honor, anyone can
sit and cook up a conspiracy that would go
world-wide with connections and then come in and
say, "Your Honor, it's not collateral because we can
connect this up to this and get three or four
hundred things."
THE COURT: We can apply a test of whether or
not it's collateral. There is one given to us in
the code. I 1 11 give you the page and number if you
want. It's rule 607. You'll find it at 230 of
Kirkpatrick's text. It's right there. The test is
there. It meets the standard or it doesn't. So we
can deal with that.
What he is raising now is interest. So we
have to go back to 609-1 to look at because the
requirements are the same as those for bias. A
foundation must be laid. If he denies the interest,
then you can offer proof. That's the area he has
25
now claimed Mr. Cooley has
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4829
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I don't want to speak for you, Mr. Cooley,
but if I'm understanding you correctly, you are
talking about a self interest.
MR. COOLEY: Yes, sir, I am. A self-interest
then and a self-interest now.
THE COURT: Well, that falls under 609-1. So
I suggest to counsel, all of you, that you read that
very carefully, because it does require foundation.
And I don't say that you have to read it this
minute. I say if you want to read it tonight,
that's fine.
MR. COOLEY: I would like to read it tonight,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: You might want to read the
commentary and the text.
MR. McMURRY: I have spent most of the day
reading it. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Pardon me?
MKR. McMURRY: I spent most of the day
reading it. Page 263 of Kirkpatrick, the final
paragraph seems to me to have some merit when it
states: "Although Rule 609-1 authorizes proof of
bias or interest, only by evidence that the witness
engaged in conduct or made statements showing bias
or interest] the Court's are likely to give the rule
G. ARMSTRONG
X
4830
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a broader construction. For example. Courts will
undoubtedly allow proof that the witness is a
party's brother. Even though such a status involves
neither conduct nor statments of the witness."
But then we run smack dab into the 611,
protection of the witness. And Kirkpatrick goes on
to state at the top of page 264, "Rule 609-11 sets
forth much more stringent foundation requirements
for impeachment of a witness for bias or interest
than does Rule 613."
So it's conduct or statements, not this
general attack, "Well isn't that the time that the
mission holders' meeting occurred?" That isn't
relational nor is it conduct.
THE COURT: I thought I was trying to set
this out; that there has to be strict foundational
requirements to what we are doing.
MR. McMURRY: Thank you, Your Honor. And the
predicate —
THE COURT: And I think you also have to read
in conjunction with that, and I fully recognize this
also, gentlemen, "The Court" — I'm reading directly
again — "retains discretion to find the outer
limits of impeachment by bias and/or interest."
Specifically it says to "See rule 611-1,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4831
which authorizes the Court to protect witnesses from
harassment or undue embarrasment." I understand
that's my job, and I'll look at that in the context
in which it's coming in. I'm only trying here to
point out to you gentlemen the applicable rules that
we're going to go by.
MR. COOLEY: Your Honor also pointed out in
the lobby there are salutary rights.
THE COURT: We were never in the lobby.
MR. COOLEY: I'm sorry, in chambers.
THE COURT: Yes, we were in chambers.
MR. COOLEY: You pointed out the rule; there
were seven bases you —
THE COURT: I read those to you. I'll refer
you to 607.
MR. COOLEY: It's the rule of evidence
contrary to what he has testified to.
THE COURT: Yes. That deals with the
collateral matter rule.
MR. COOLEY: Yes, sir. And I was attempting
to show that this is not collateral within that
rule.
THE COURT: Read that section carefully. I
thought I said that initially we have a test that we
can use as to what is or what is not collateral.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4832
MR. COOLEY: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: I think, gentlemen, be prepared
in the morning to tell me that you fully read those
sections and have digested them. I know what they
say; I want you to know what they say. All right we
are in recess. Oh, one other thing. Mr. Armstrong
MR. COOLEY: I would like to be present when
Mr. Armstrong makes his inquiry of the Court.
THE COURT: Of course, you may. I have
another matter. This doesn't have to be on the
record.
(Discussion was held off the record.)
THE COURT: All right. Let's hear what Mr.
Armstrong has to say.
Mr. Armstrong, you seem to have a question.
If I can answer it, I will endeavor to do so.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. Your Honor. Mr.
Cooley made a couple of references today to material
which I provided to this woman, who was called Rena,
who represented herself as a publisher and to whom I
gave some of my writings and art work for that
purpose. They were not given to the so-called
Loyalists, they were given to her for that purpose.
And if Mr. Cooley has copies of those things, first
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4833
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
of all it's improper, but I would like to get
copies. I think that they certainly have nothing to
do with the Operation Armstrong other than the fact
that it was represented to me that she was a
publisher who wanted to see my material.
THE COURT: Well, I can tell you how to get
them. I question my authority as to — No, I can’t
tell you how to get them. I mean, I know how you
can get them, but I can't tell you how you can get
them because I would be in the area of giving legal
advice and that's something I can't do.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Can Mr. Cooley tell me, Your
Honor, if he has them?
THE COURT: I don't know if Mr. Cooley will
respond. He is under no requirement to respond to
the question.
MR. COOLEY: I do not intend to respond. Your
Honor.
THE COURT: I'm not trying to play Catch 22
with you, Mr. Armstrong. I assure you I'm not doing
that. I am only trying to stick to the canons of
judicial ethics which I am bound by and the rules
which I live and die by, so —
MR. ARMSTRONG: I understand that. Your
We have requested a number of times. You
25
Honor
G. ARMSTRONG - X
4834
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
see, I'm not represented by an attorney here. Mr.
McMurry has certainly requested materials.
THE COURT: I have ordered all the matters
connected with the Armstrong —
MR. COOLEY: Except his handwritten material.
THE COURT: Except his handwritten material.
MR. McMURRY: Your Honor, if I may, because
this is something that has come before you, the
exception to your blanket order was the handwritten
materials which Mr. Cooley was going to be using for
purposes of cross-examination, and he argued that
this was his work product and therefore should not
be disclosed prior to being used on Mr. Armstrong in
cross-examination. Now, we seem to have now ended
that part of the cross-examination.
THE COURT: I'm not sure we have.
MR. COOLEY: Neither am I, Your Honor.
MR. McMURRY: Very well. Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm not trying to be difficult,
Mr. Armstrong. I'm certainly not, but there are
limits. People think judges have the power to do
all sorts of things. Unfortunately we do not. And
I have to admit to you that we do not. There are
ways, but I think if you need to get that kind of
advice, you have to see a lawyer.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4835
MR. ARMSTRONG: I understand. Your Honor. I
just think that, you know, enough is enough.
MR. McMURRY: Thank you. Your Honor.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you.
(Court recessed at 5:12 p.m.)
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11